PatentNext Takeaway: Demonstrating that a claimed invention provides an “improvement” to an underlying computing device is one of the best ways to achieve patent eligibility pursuant to Section 101 of U.S. Patent Law. However, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an improvement to a “User Experience” (UX) alone is insufficient. The Federal Circuit recently issued yet another case, further cementing its position that improving a UX, without more, fails to demonstrate a technical improvement for satisfying Section 101 per the Alice two-part test.
AI chatbots have grown increasingly ubiquitous over the last year. For example, the basic version of ChatGPT is a conversational chatbot capable of understanding natural language inputs and generating highly coherent text responses. However, exciting new multimodal AI models like Google’s Gemini showcase more sophisticated capabilities.Continue Reading Beyond Language: How Multimodal AI Sees the Bigger Picture
The UK’s Patents Act 1977 § 1(2)(c) excludes, from patent protection, “a program for a computer.” Under this exclusion, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) rejected Emotional Perception AI Ltd.’s patent claim, which included an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). However, on November 21, 2023, the High Court overturned the rejection, stating that the exclusion did not apply. In response to the High Court’s decision, the UKIPO temporarily suspended its guidance on patent applications relating to AI inventions, and issued interim guidance that Patent Examiners should not object to inventions involving ANNs under the “program for a computer” exclusion.Continue Reading UK’s High Court Opens The Door For More AI Inventions
PatentNext Takeaway: The President’s recent Executive Order (EO) regarding artificial intelligence (AI) addresses, among other things, intellectual property (IP). The EO directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and U.S. Copyright Office to provide guidance and recommendations on IP issues of patent inventorship, patent eligibility, and copyright authorship in view of Artificial Intelligence (AI). While the guidance and recommendations will not have the force of law, they are nonetheless expected to include data and insights from stakeholders that could form a basis for future legislation and/or provide persuasive information as AI-related cases find their way into U.S. courts. Continue Reading Intellectual Property (IP) impacts from President Biden’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
PatentNext Takeaway: Companies have increased access to artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and Github Copilot, which promise to improve the efficiency and work product output of employees. However, the adoption of such AI tools is not without risks, including the risk of loss of intellectual property (IP) rights. Accordingly, companies should proceed with caution by considering developing an AI policy to help eliminate or mitigate such risks. An AI policy can look similar to, and in many cases be a supplement to, a company’s open-source software policy. Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy Considerations
PatentNext Takeaway: According to a recent district court decision, an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an “author” as that term is defined by U.S. copyright law. This decision follows the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s precedent regarding a “monkey selfie” photograph, where that court found that non-humans (e.g., monkeys) lack standing to sue under U.S. copyright law. The U.S. Copyright Office has since used such rulings to deny copyright registration of works that identify non-humans (i.e., AI systems) as the sole author. Continue Reading How U.S. Copyright Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Authorship Has Gone the Way of the Monkey
PatentNext Takeaway: To date, the Federal Circuit has not reviewed many cases involving artificial intelligence (AI). However, in a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that a “machine learning” claim element lacked sufficient enablement because both the claim itself and the written description of the patent to which it belonged failed to describe “how” the claimed invention implemented this element. In view of this ruling, patent practitioners should endeavor to explain sufficiently in the written description the specific aspects of how machine learning features (and other computer-implemented invention features) operate in order to demonstrate sufficient enablement.Continue Reading The Federal Circuit hints at Enablement requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions
In an era where the boundary between man and machine continues to blur, entertainment media fans are finding themselves at the frontier of a fascinating phenomenon – the production of new media featuring their favorite artists, courtesy of artificial intelligence (AI).Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence, Reel Talent: AI’s Growing Role in Multimedia
I am excited to announce the publication of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)’s article on “IP Aspects of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Technologies.” Continue Reading Announcing AIPLA article on Augmented Reality(AR) / Virtual Reality(VR): IP Aspects of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Technologies
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as ChatGPT, can output new content based on user input. If such new content forms part of a new “invention” (i.e., part of a patent claim), does the AI system need to be listed as an “inventor”? There are currently two schools of thought for answering this question. The below article explores this further. Continue Reading Do you have to list an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system as an inventor or joint inventor on a Patent Application?