The realm of technological innovation can be compared to a huge, complex puzzle. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), two crucial puzzle parts, have drawn a lot of attention recently. AI and ML have revolutionized several industries, changing how we live, work, and interact. A crucial query has arisen amidst this revolutionary advancement, are these outstanding discoveries patent eligible?
Determining whether a certain form fits inside the confine of a puzzle piece is analogous to the question of patent eligibility for AI and ML inventions. Some ideas matches the established requirements for patentability, giving inventors exclusive rights and promoting further innovation, just as some shapes fit together precisely and are able to blend into the overall composition. Other shapes, on the other hand, might not measure up since they don’t neatly fit into the parameters of patent eligibility.
Understanding Patent eligibility
For an invention to be patentable, it requires the invention must be novel, non-obvious, and have utility to be considered eligible. However, the application of these criteria becomes more complex when it comes to AI and ML inventions. These technologies often involve algorithms, data processing, and computational models, raising questions about whether they meet the patent requirements.
Challenges in Patenting AI and ML Inventions
- AI and ML inventions face a significant hurdle in patent eligibility due to the concept of “abstract ideas” in patent law.
- The use of algorithms and mathematical models in AI and ML can sometimes be viewed as abstract ideas rather than tangible inventions.
- AI and ML technologies often generate solutions autonomously, without direct human intervention. This can create difficulties in meeting the criteria that an invention must involve a human’s contribution or inventive step.
Let's consider an example to illustrate the concept
Patent eligibility for AI and ML invention
Imagine a company called TechnoGenius Inc. has developed an AI-powered virtual assistant capable of accurately diagnosing medical conditions based on patient symptoms. The virtual assistant utilizes sophisticated ML algorithms to analyze vast amounts of medical data, identify patterns, and provide accurate diagnoses with a high level of accuracy. They submit a patent application outlining the distinctive data processing methods, AI system’s diagnostic skills, and its special algorithms. Is this AI -powered invention eligible for a patent, which is the question that now needs to be answered?
In this case, the shape of TechnoGenius Inc. invention aligns perfectly with the puzzle piece of patent eligibility. The invention meets the established criteria for patentability, as it introduces a novel and non-obvious solution to a technical problem. However, there might be situations in which some AI and ML inventions don’t fit cleanly within the parameters of patent eligibility. This could occur if the invention is not innovative, is thought to be an abstract concept that cannot be implemented technically, or does not result in a significant technological improvement. In such circumstances, the patent eligibility jigsaw piece might not fit and the innovation might not qualify for patent protection.
AI patent eligibility rule in the United States, Europe
The rules and criteria for patent eligibility of AI inventions can vary across different jurisdictions. Here’s an overview of the AI patent eligibility rules in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world:
United States (USPTO):
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance serves as the foundation for USPTO practice with relation to subject matter eligibility. More information on the eligibility test is provided in the
The revised guidance was indeed influenced by key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit judgments on challenges of patent eligibility for AI and ML inventions in the case of Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International.
Alice Corporation patent in question
An Australian company named Alice Corporation held a patent for a computerized system and method for lowering settlement risk in financial transactions. The method used a computer to make it easier for parties to trade financial responsibilities, mitigating the risk of non-payment by using a middleman.
CLS Bank’s Invalidity Argument
Global banking institution CLS Bank International protested against the validity of Alice Corporation’s patent, claiming that the claims were limited to an implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer system. CLS Bank argued that the claims lacked the required level of technological innovation to be eligible for patent protection.
Supreme Court Decision: Implications for Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions, including AI and ML
The Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International case established an important precedent for patent eligibility in the United States. It clarified that the mere application of an abstract idea using generic computer components is not sufficient to meet the requirements of patent eligibility. The decision introduced a two-part test, commonly known as the Alice test, to determine whether an invention is eligible for patent protection. This test involves determining whether the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and, if so, whether they include an inventive concept that goes beyond generic computer implementation.
Impact on AI and ML Patents
The Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International case has had a significant impact on the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions, including those related to AI and ML. It has led to increased scrutiny of patents claiming abstract ideas and has set a higher bar for demonstrating technological innovation and specific applications in order to meet the requirements of patent eligibility in the United States.
The rules and criteria for patent eligibility of AI inventions can vary across different jurisdictions. Here’s an overview of the AI patent eligibility rules in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world:
United States (USPTO):
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance serves as the foundation for USPTO practice with relation to subject matter eligibility. More information on the eligibility test is provided in the
The revised guidance was indeed influenced by key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit judgments on challenges of patent eligibility for AI and ML inventions in the case of Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International.
Alice Corporation patent in question
An Australian company named Alice Corporation held a patent for a computerized system and method for lowering settlement risk in financial transactions. The method used a computer to make it easier for parties to trade financial responsibilities, mitigating the risk of non-payment by using a middleman.
CLS Bank’s Invalidity Argument
Global banking institution CLS Bank International protested against the validity of Alice Corporation’s patent, claiming that the claims were limited to an implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer system. CLS Bank argued that the claims lacked the required level of technological innovation to be eligible for patent protection.
Supreme Court Decision: Implications for Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions, including AI and ML
The Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International case established an important precedent for patent eligibility in the United States. It clarified that the mere application of an abstract idea using generic computer components is not sufficient to meet the requirements of patent eligibility. The decision introduced a two-part test, commonly known as the Alice test, to determine whether an invention is eligible for patent protection. This test involves determining whether the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and, if so, whether they include an inventive concept that goes beyond generic computer implementation.
Impact on AI and ML Patents
The Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International case has had a significant impact on the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions, including those related to AI and ML. It has led to increased scrutiny of patents claiming abstract ideas and has set a higher bar for demonstrating technological innovation and specific applications in order to meet the requirements of patent eligibility in the United States.
Europe (European Patent Convention, EPC)
The European Patent Office (EPO) has adapted its approach to the patentability of inventions involving artificial intelligence in response to the growing prominence of AI in patent applications. AI is considered a subset of computer science, and inventions involving AI are categorized as computer-implemented inventions.
The European Patent Convention exclude computer programs as such from patent protection under Article 52(2)(c). However, inventions involving software are not automatically excluded from patentability as long as they possess a technical character.
The EPO’s Guidelines for Examination, specifically Section G-II, 3.3.1 on artificial intelligence and machine learning, elucidate that computer-implemented inventions related to AI are subject to the same patentability criteria as other inventions. This means that AI inventions must overcome the exclusionary criteria of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC and demonstrate the technical aspects that make them novel, inventive, and industrially applicable.
Latest EPO Case Law on AI Patenting: Analysis of T 697/17
In October 2019, the EPO’s Board of Appeal delivered its decision in case T 697/17, highlighted the need to assess technical contributions in AI patents. The Board emphasized that non-technical features should be chosen based on technical considerations aimed at achieving a technical effect.
This means that inventors need to demonstrate how the non-technical aspects of their AI invention go beyond just implementing a computer algorithm and contribute to solving technical problems. By doing so, they enhance the chances of their invention being considered innovative and patentable.
Future Trends and Developments
As AI and ML continue to advance, the legal landscape surrounding patent eligibility is expected to evolve as well. There is an ongoing debate about the need for specialized AI patent laws and clearer guidelines to address the unique challenges
MCRPL understands the importance of AI and ML discoveries in fostering innovation and economic development. We emphasize that in order to ensure that your AI discoveries meet the required patent eligibility requirements and acquire solid patent protection in the dynamic and growing AI ecosystem, organizations and inventors must collaborate closely with expert IP specialists. We are committed to assisting you in the patent eligibility process and maximizing your chances of securing valuable patent rights. Furthermore, our commitment to providing comprehensive patent services includes offering strategic advice and insights into overcoming patent eligibility challenges.
