9 month 2 day, The U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia made the decision, Approved the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) A motion for summary judgment, And supported USPTO The idea that AI algorithms cannot be listed as inventors of US patents. The court stated that, Except for serious mistakes, "Administrative procedure law" (APA) Very deferential to the final agency's decision.

        DABUS (Artificial intelligence robot) The resulting result corresponds to (1) Fractal design of food container surface, Can help prevent stacked containers from sticking together, and (2) A technique that controls the timing of a flashing warning light to help attract attention. Stephen．Thaler (Stephen Thaler) doctor (DABUS The creator and owner of) Patent applications for the said invention have been filed in various parts of the world, And listed Thaler as the applicant, will DABUS List as inventor.

        Mixed blessing and sorrow

        In order to DABUS The invention is patented worldwide, Thaler has had mixed results. UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) And the European Patent Office (EPO) Have rejected the idea that AI machines qualify as inventors under their patent laws. however, South Africa recently approved Thaler's patent application, And became the first country to grant a patent to an artificial intelligence inventor (It's worth noting, South Africa has a registration-based patent system, Just submit and fill out all the relevant forms correctly, You can grant a patent) . The Australian Patent Office, which examines substantive patent applications, initially rejected Thaler's application, The reason is that only humans can be listed as inventors in Australian patent applications. But the Federal Court of Australia overturned that decision, This suggests that artificial intelligence algorithms can be credited as inventors (The Australian Patent Commissioner has appealed) .

        In America, USPTO Argues that it is not permissible to list artificial intelligence algorithms as inventors, The agency therefore refused to review the patent application with its own characteristics. Saylor and his legal team are in the Eastern District of Virginia USPTO The decision was filed in a lawsuit.

        United States courts: USPTO Worthy of respect

        District court 9 month 2 Japan's rulings are based mainly on respect for administrative agencies' interpretation of their own laws and standards of review. The judgment is to "Administrative procedure law" In accordance with the statement, Only in any, Capricious or otherwise inconsistent with the law, USPTO In order to be overturned, The District Court then stated that the administration should be respected in its careful examination of the interpretation of the provisions of the statute.

        Thaler argued that, USPTO It was not respected because it did not consider alternative interpretations or provide evidence of legislative intent. The judge rejected his plea on two grounds: First of all, Thaler's argument adds a requirement that runs counter to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents; secondly, USPTO The decision was made after careful consideration.

        The judgment continued, In addition to respect for the executive branch and standards of review, USPTO Correctly identified "inventor" It has to be human. The court ruled on the basis of a decision by Congress in "Patent law" and "2011 The United States Inventions Act of nineteen sixty-one" Medium to individual "inventor" and "co-inventor" The definition of the analysis reached this conclusion. The decision then reviewed the Supreme Court's decision v "Torture victims protection act" , Multiple dictionaries and explanations of common usage, discover "individual" Refer to "Natural person" , So the inventor must be a natural person. The decision concluded with a number of federal circuit precedents, These precedents state that the inventor must be a natural person, And argued that the policy concerns raised by Thaler could not challenge the plain language of the statute.

        When the time is right is up to Congress

        The verdict ends with an interesting assertion, That artificial intelligence may one day become sophisticated enough to establish itself as an inventor, But it would then be up to Congress, not the courts, to decide whether to extend the inventor definition to artificial intelligence. Look at the courts of the future or USPTO It will be interesting to see if Congress follows suit on this issue.

        Saylor has said he intends to appeal against the summary judgment. Therefore, Interested parties will have another opportunity to file an amicus brief (This time to the federal Circuit) , To put forward the factors related to this problem.

(Compiled from www. ipwatchdog. com)

        Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Wu Xian　proofread: Liu Peng



        disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.