|
|
|
| On the Patentability and Ownership of Artificial Intelligence-generated Inventions |
| Chen Quanzhen,Xu Difeng |
| (School of Law, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Artificial intelligence is a creative system with deep learning capabilities, language recognition capabilities, machine perception capabilities, and knowledge map construction capabilities. On the basis of this connotation, artificial intelligence is likely to get rid of human intervention in the future, realize independent invention and creation, and gradually become the most important field in the global patent layout, providing an important way for artificial intelligence investors to obtain huge profits. It is foreseeable that it will become the high ground of artificial intelligence intellectual property rights to generate the technical solutions by artificial intelligence. Consequently artificial intelligence inventions will have a huge impact on the current patent system and theories. This impact is manifested on the macro level as the purpose of the patent system, the value system is facing reconstruction, and the micro level is manifested as the patent object. The scope is expanded, the criteria for judging the three natures of patent examination are improved, and the rights of related subjects overlap. Under the current legal system, inventions generated by artificial intelligence are necessary to be protected, and they can also be included in the scope of protection of the current patent system. Therefore, it is necessary to construct a set of patent ownership distribution models that are specifically applicable to artificial intelligence inventions.#br#Traditional patent object examination standards do not deny the patentability of program algorithms. As a method patent, the program algorithm does not need to cater to the new examination standards of computer programs. On the contrary, the program algorithm can follow the patent examination standard of the traditional method. Therefore, under the guidance of the "algorithm + technology" rule, it can prevent artificial intelligence inventions from being effectively protected due to the lack of physical boundaries by clarifying the artificial intelligence generation technology scheme as a method patent object. When the artificial intelligence generation technology program can meet the traditional requirements of "material state change", it should be given the opportunity of continuous review. In addition, although artificial intelligence inventions have a certain impact on the review of the three characteristics of patents, they are not insoluble. The three characteristics test of artificial intelligence invention is essentially a technical self-certification problem. When the traditional review model is not enough to deal with this unique invention, it is necessary to learn from the neutral advantage of artificial intelligence technology and conduct "new-style review" of related inventions.#br#In the field of artificial intelligence patents, on the one hand, relevant industrial policies protect their monopoly interests by granting artificial intelligence investors or owners with patent rights, encouraging capital investment and technological innovation, realizing the long-term development of artificial intelligence technology, and promoting the growth of the national economy and social welfare. On the other hand, the granting of some artificial intelligence invention patents may also cause the phenomenon of "patent jungle" and restrict the subsequent innovation and development of artificial intelligence technology. Therefore, it should be based on the consideration of industrial interests first, and patents should be granted after the relevant technical solutions are mature. It can be seen that in the field of artificial intelligence patents, industrial interests are the first element to measure whether artificial intelligence inventions can be patented. Industrial policy theory is based on the overall interests of society, not simply protecting the monopoly interests of artificial intelligence patent holders, but more importantly, promoting the progress of the national artificial intelligence industry and economic development. As the subject of patent rights, artificial intelligence may cause ethical conflicts and violate the legislative purpose of the patent law. Denying the legitimacy of the subject of artificial intelligence patents means that we must refocus on artificial intelligence investors, designers and users to find new patentees in order to properly resolve the issue of the ownership of artificial intelligence-generated invention patents. From the perspective of industrial policy and interest incentive theory, it can better promote the development of artificial intelligence technology by building an artificial intelligence invention patent ownership system with investors as the core and supplemented by the principle of autonomy of will.#br#
|
|
Received: 02 April 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 洪岩. 浅析人工智能技术的专利保护——以医疗领域为例[J]. 知识产权，2018，32(12)：74-81. [2] 宋洁，王志远. 《专利审查指南》修改后计算机程序的专利保护研究[J]. 软件，2017，38(5)：67-70. [3] 刘强，周奕澄. 人工智能发明专利审查标准研究[J]. 净月学刊，2018(3)：76-85. [4] 崔国斌. 专利法上的抽象思想与具体技术——计算机程序算法的客体属性分析[J]. 清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2005，91(3)：37-51. [5] 刘友华，魏远山. 人工智能生成技术方案的可专利性及权利归属[J]. 电子知识产权，2019(4)：84-90. [6] 季冬梅. 人工智能发明成果对专利制度的挑战——以遗传编程为例[J]. 知识产权，2017，31(11)：59-66. [7] 刘友华，魏远山. 人工智能生成技术方案的可专利性及权利归属[J]. 湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2019，43(4)：84-90. [8] 邓建志，程智婷. 人工智能对专利保护制度的挑战与应对[J]. 南昌大学学报(人文社会科学版)，2019，50(2)：15-24. [9] 朱雪忠，张广伟. 人工智能产生的技术成果可专利性及其权利归属研究[J]. 情报杂志，2018，37(2)：69-75. [10] 李想. 人工智能参与发明的授权问题探究[J]. 科技进步与对策，2020，37(15)：144-151. [11] 徐棣枫，孟睿. 规制专利申请行为：专利法第四次修改草案中的诚实信用原则[J]. 知识产权，2019，33(11)：69-78. [12] 李彦涛. 人工智能技术对专利制度的挑战与应对[J]. 东方法学，2019,12(1)：84-93. [13] 韩兴. 专利制度危机背景下的技术正义原则研究[J]. 知识产权，2016，30(11)：71-76. [14] 张平. 论知识产权制度的“产业政策原则”[J]. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2012，49(3)：121-132. [15] 贾根良，楚珊珊. 中国制造愿景与美国制造业创新中的政府干预[J]. 政治经济学评论，2019，10(4)：88-107. [16] 何哲. 通向人工智能时代——兼论美国人工智能战略方向及对中国人工智能战略的借鉴[J]. 电子政务，2016(12)：2-10. [17] 周建军. 美国产业政策的政治经济学：从产业技术政策到产业组织政策[J]. 经济社会体制比较，2017(1)：80-94. [18] THALER V. The comptroller-general of patents,designs and trade marks[2020]. EWHC,2412. [19] 曹新明，马子斌. 基于激励理论的人工智能发明人身份探究[J]. 科技与法律，2021(2)：42-50. [20] 王玫黎，胡晓. 人工智能的知识产权适格主体研究——一种国际法进路[J]. 电子知识产权，2019(10)：4-15. [21] 陈全真. 人工智能创作物的著作权归属：投资者对创作者的超越[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版)，2019，21(6)：26-32. [22] 冯晓青，周贺微. 知识产权的公共利益价值取向研究[J]. 学海，2019，20(1)：188-195. [23] 吴汉东. 人工智能生成发明的专利法之问[J]. 当代法学，2019，33(4)：24-38. [24] 刁舜. 人工智能自主发明物专利保护模式论考[J]. 科技进步与对策，2018，35(21)：119-125. [25] 王正中. 论人工智能生成发明创造的权利归属——立足于推动发明创造的应用[J]. 电子知识产权，2019，20(2)：21-30. [26] 王瀚. 欧美人工智能专利保护比较研究[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版)，2018，33(1)：96-101. [27] 陈全真. 人工智能创作物的著作权归属：投资者对创作者的超越[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版)，2019，21(6)：26-32. [28] 贾引狮. 人工智能技术发展对“发明人”角色的挑战与应对[J]. 科技进步与对策，2019，36(3)：98-105. [29] 陈全真. 智能机器人权利存在的由因及对策[J]. 贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版)，2019，50(3)：144-151. [30] 王果. 计算机“创作作品”的著作权保护[J]. 云南大学学报(法学版)，2016，29(1)：20-25. [31] 易继明. 人工智能创作物是作品吗[J]. 法律科学，2017，35(5)：137-147. |
|
|
|
