This paper highlights the ongoing conundrum between Artificial Intelligence and their patentability under current regime of patent laws in the selected jurisdictions. Authors have analysed the different standard parameters for granting patent protection in the few chosen jurisdictions of EU, USA and Japan. The key factors of determination for grant of patent in the said jurisdictions which has been taken into consideration in this paper are, subject matter eligibility, the involvement of human mind in the inventive steps to be taken, the requirement of disclosure of the key aspects of the invention, and lastly the threshold for deciding the inventorship. As we talk about the novel creations, AI machines are rapidly advancing to replace human ingenuity in the process of creativity and creating inventions with bare minimum human involvement. This is pertinent here to mention that if AI systems by themselves can produce optimum number of inventions at comparitively less cost and in relatively less time with more accuracy, the patent policies may need to be recalibrated. In this paper we have discussed how AI systems are able to generate inventions and their role in the inventing process, we have also discussed how far human involvement in the inventing process plays a crucial role in different jurisdictions, resorting to the real life example of DABUS. Further this paper proceeds with explaining the interface between concept of PHOSITA in light of the inventions created with assistance of AI, this is important for the theme of this paper as this part explains the challenges that AI is posing to deteemine the critaria of inventiveness in the process of creativity, which is a vital part for grant of patent. Lastly, authirs have concluded the paper on the note that patent law in its present state is ill equipped to facilitate the inventions created by Artificial Intelligence and any decision taken in hurry would only dismantle the present form of patent laws across the jurisdictios, and so the few suggestions to remedy this situation have been posed by the authors in the last segament of paper.

Topics
Artificial intelligence, Funding, Patents
1.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
, “
Device and Method for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience
,” U.S. Patent 20150379394A1, Dec. 31,
2015
.
2.
Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(n 3) [1].
3.
35 USC § 100(f
).
4.
Patents Act 1977 (UK), s 7(3
).
5.
European Parliament
, “
Report on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
,” PE 650.527v02-00, Oct. 2,
2020
, para. 12./
E.
Bonadio
 et al., “
Artificial Intelligence as Inventor: Exploring the Consequences for Patent Law
,”
IPO
, vol.
1
, pp.
48
–
66
,
2021
.
https://doi.org/10.46632/daai/1/1/8
Crossref
Search ADS
Google Scholar
 
6.
K.
Holt
, “
Google CEO Sundar Pichai Says AI ’Needs To Be Regulated’
,”
Forbes
, Jan. 20,
2020
. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/krisholt/2020/01/20/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-says-ai-needs-to-be-regulated/#55ef43e5f914. [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024].
Google Scholar
 
7.
Thaler v. Vidal
, 43 F.4th 1207, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (
2023
).
8.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce
, “
Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions
,” Feb. 13,
2024
.
9.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce
, “
Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions
,” Feb. 13,
2024
.
10.
B.J.
Copeland
, “
Alan Turing: British Mathematician and Logician
,”
Britannica
, June 19,
2019
. [Online]. Available: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alan-Turing. [Accessed: MaR. 16, 2024].
Google Scholar
 
11.
D.
Dowe
 and
G.
Oppy
, “
The Turing Test
,”
Stan. Encyclopedia of Phil.
, Aug. 18,
2020
. [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/.
Google Scholar
 
12.
M. U.
Scherer
, “
Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies
,”
Harv. J. L. & Tech.
, vol.
29
, p.
354
,
2016
.
Google Scholar
 
13.
Turner
,
Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence
, 1st ed.
Palgrave Macmillan
,
2018
, p.
12
.
Google Scholar
 
14.
OECD
, “Explanatory memorandum on the updated OECD definition of an AI system,”
OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, no. 8.
Paris: OECD Publishing
,
2024
. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1787/623da898-en
. [Accessed: MaR. 16, 2024]
15.
European Parliament
, “
Artificial Intelligence Act
” (P9_TA(2024)0138), Article
3
(
1
). [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138_EN.pdf. [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024.]
16.
T. W.
Dornis
, “
Der Schutz künstlicher Intelligenz im Immaterialgüterrecht
,”
GRUR
, vol.
2019
, pp.
1252
–
1257
.
17.
P.
Blok
, “
The Inventor’s New Tool: Artificial Intelligence - How Does It Fit in the European Patent System?
”
European Intellectual Property Review
, vol.
39
, no.
2
, pp.
69
–ff,
2017
.
Google Scholar
 
18.
W.
Fisher
, “Theories of Intellectual Property,” in
S. R.
Munzer
 (Ed.),
New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property
,
Cambridge University Press
,
2001
, p.
168
.
Google Scholar
 
19.
R.
Posner
, “
Economic Analysis of Law
,” in
Economic Analysis of Law
, p.
16
.
20.
R. H.
Coase
, “
The Problem of Social Costs
,”
J. Law & Economics
, vol.
31
, p.
44
,
1960
.
Google Scholar
 
21.
“
This is especially evidenced in the field of orphan drugs: Although market players are able to obtain a patent, they do not engage in the marketing of the respective drugs since the market conditions do not allow them to make a sufficient amount of money with or without the patent
.”
22.
EPC
(
1973
), article 52(2) and (3).
23.
D.
Visser
,
The Annotated European Patent Convention 2000
, 25th ed.
Kluwer Law International
,
2017
.
Google Scholar
 
24.
EPC
, “
European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application
,” article
52
(
1
),
1973
.
25.
European Patent Office
, “
Revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC 2000): Synoptic Presentation of the EPC 1973/2000
,”
Special Edition 4 European Patent Office Official Journal
, ISSN 0170/9291,
2007
, pp.
48
. [Online]. Available: http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj007/08_07/special_edition_4-epc_2000_synoptic.pdf. [Accessed Feb. 19, 2024].
26.
European Patent Office, ’Guidelines for Examination - Part G - Chapter VII-2
.
27.
Case T-989/93 Scintillation Media/Fisher Scientific, Boards of Appeal of the EPO; case I-1203/97 Recup Svenska v. Recotech Heatex & Menerga Apparatebau, Boards of Appeal of the EPO; case T-570/91 A.E. PLC v. Mahle GmbH, Boards of Appeal of the EPO
.
28.
Case T-254/86 Yellow Dyes, Boards of Appeal of the EPO; case T-570/91 A.E. PLC v. Mahle, Boards of Appeal of the EPO, [4.2]; case T-698/10 Broadcom Corporation
.
29.
Case T-254/86 Yellow Dyes, Boards of Appeal of the EPO.; case T-570/91 A.E. PLC v. Mahle, Boards of Appeal of the EPO, [4.2.]; case T-698/10 Broadcom Corporation
.
30.
European Patent Office
, “
Guidelines for Examination - Part F - Chapter III - 1.32
,”
EPC
(
1973
), rule
42
(
1
).
31.
EPC
(
1973
), article
81
.
32.
Case J-7/99 Heavy-duty Power
,
Boards of Appeal of the EPO
, [6].
33.
S. I.
Thaler
, “
Food Container
,”
European Patent Application No. EP3564144, filed on Oct. 17
,
2018
, issued on Nov. 6, 2019.
Google Scholar
 
34.
Hartmann and others (n 5
)
102
.
35.
In re Petrus A. C.M. Nuiten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1455, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
: “
[The] four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter
.”
36.
Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging
, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
37.
Diamond u Chalrabarty
, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (
1980
).
38.
J. P.
Meara
, “
Just Who is the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art - Patent Law’s Mysterious Personage
,”
Washington Law Review
, vol.
77
, pp.
273
,
2007
.
Google Scholar
 
39.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Secretariat of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents
, “
Study on Inventive Step
,” SCP/22/3, Geneva, Jul.
6
,
2015
, p.
3
. [Online]. Available: www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_22/scp_22_3.pdf. [Accessed: Mar. 15, 2024].
40.
Graham u Deere
(n 143) [17-18].
41.
J. S.
Sherkow
, “
Negativing Invention
,”
Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev.
, vol.
4
, pp.
1091
–
1110
,
2011
.
Google Scholar
 
42.
Watanabe
,
Yosuke
. “
I, Inventor: Patent Inventorship for Artificial Intelligence Systems
.”
57 Idaho L. Rev.
(
2022
), https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-lawreview/vol57/iss2/9 (accessed March 16, 2024).
Google Scholar
 
43.
Chisum (n 138) sec. 5.04.
44.
550 U.S. 398
(
2007
).
45.
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398
,
2007
.
46.
35 U.S. Code § 103 - Conditions for patentability; Non-obvious Subject Matter
” (
Legal Information Institute)
. [Online]. Available: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103. [Accessed: Jan. 16, 2024].
47.
Radiator Speciality Co. v. Buhot
, 39 F.2d 373, 376 (3rd Cir. 1930).
48.
Duffy (n 4) 18 and 43
.
49.
A.B. Dick Co. v.
Barnett
, 288 F. 799 (2nd Cir. 1923), as analyzed in W. H. Francis et al.,
Cases and Materials on Patent Law, Including Trade Secrets
, 7th ed.,
West Academic Publishing
,
2017
, p.
576
.
Google Scholar
 
50.
USPTO
, “
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
,”
2019
, sec. 2164.01(a).
51.
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc
., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
52.
W. M.
Schuster
, “
Artificial Intelligence and Patent Ownership
,”
Washington and Lee Law Review
, vol.
75
, pp.
1945
–
1962
,
2018
.
Google Scholar
 
53.
Silvestri v.
Grant
, 496 F.2d 593, 596, 181 USPQ 706, 708 (C.C.P.A 1974) and Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 918, 175 USPQ 172, 174 (C.C.P.A 1972).
54.
M.
Hashiguchi
, “
The Global Artificial Intelligence Revolution Challenges Patent Eligibility
,”
J. Bus. & Tech.
, vol.
13
, pp.
11
–
24
,
2017
.
Google Scholar
 
55.
WIPO Secretariat of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents
, “14.”/ Japan Patent Office, “Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan, Part III, Chapter 2, sections 2.3 and 3.”
56.
WIPO Secretariat of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (n 141)
7
.
57.
The JPA, Article 36(4)6).
58.
Japan Patent
Office
, “Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan, Part II, Chapter 1, sections 1.2-1.3.”
59.
Case Examples Pertinent to AI-related Technology
” (Japanese Patent Office). [Online]. Available: https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/ai_jirei_e.html. [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024].
60.
Fine Granule Medicine v. Peizer, Tokyo District Court
, No. 7196 (Wa), 2001, Aug. 27,
2002
.
61.
“
Part III: Inventors and Inventors’ Rights - Case No. 13: Rights Over the Invention – Inventorship
,” in
C.
Heath
 and
A.
Furuta
 (Eds.),
Japanese Patent Law: Cases and Materials, Kluwer Law International
,
2019
, pp.
145
–
154
, sec. 3b.
Google Scholar
 
62.
Shemtov (n 204) 15.
63.
“
Part III: Inventors and Inventors’ Rights - Case No. 13
.”
64.
’Part III: Inventors and Inventors’ Rights - Case No. 13
65.
The JPO
, “
Guidelines
,” Part III, Chapter 2, Section 2.2. This notion of PHOSITA was supported by Tokyo High Court, Dec. 26,
2002
, 2000 (Gyo-Ke)
404
.
66.
The USPTO
, “
Request
,” question 8. https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/trademark-basics-boot-camp-module-8-question-and-answer-panel-11 [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024].
67.
S. Y.
Tull
 and
P. E.
Miller
, “
Patenting Artificial Intelligence: Issues of Obviousness, Inventorship, and Patent Eligibility
,” 1 The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law, pp.
313
–
320
,
2018
.
68.
35 U.S. Code § 103.
69.
Thales Visionix Inc. v. US, 850 F.3d 1343
70.
Guest Post: Can AI Be Considered a PHOSITA?” IPKat
, Feb.
2024
. [Online]. Available: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/guest-post-can-ai-be-considered-phosita.html. [Accessed: Mar. 17, 2024].
71.
Article 56 EPC.
72.
43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-919 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2023).
73.
Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., 734 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
74.
See 35 U.S.C. § 100(f) (defining inventor as “the individual … who invented or discovered the invention”). Other sections also refer to inventors as “individuals.” See, e.g., id. §§ 100(g), 115.
75.
F. A.
DeCosta
, “
Drawing a ’Bright Line’ Rule over AI Inventorship
,”
FINNEGAN
, Aug. 16,
2022
. [Online]. Available:https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/drawing-a-bright-line-rule-over-ai-inventorship.html. [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024].
Google Scholar
 
76.
Drawing a ’Bright Line’ Rule over AI Inventorship,
”
FINNEGAN.
[Online]. Available: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/drawing-a-bright-line-rule-over-ai-inventorship.html. [Accessed: Mar. 16, 2024].
77.
K.
Taylor
, “
The Patentability of Inventions with Artificial Intelligence Listed as an Inventor Following Thaler v. Hirshfeld
,”
U. Cin. Intell. Prop. & Comput. L.J.
, vol.
6
, no.
2
, pp.
1
–
12
,
2022
.
Google Scholar
 
78.
B.
Kovach
, “
Ostrich with Its Head in the Sand: The Law, Inventorship, and Artificial Intelligence
,”
NW. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop.
, vol.
19
, pp.
137
, 148–151,
2021
.
Google Scholar
 
79.
C. E.
Mammen
, “
Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law: What Happens After DABUS?
,”
Nat’l L. Rev.
, Aug. 13,
2020
. [Online]. Available: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/artificial-intelligence-and-patent-law-what-happens-after-dabus. [Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024].
Google Scholar
 
80.
Kovach,supranote 30,at 148–51.
81.
Thaler v. Vidal," 43 F.4th 1207, p. 1213, 2022, petition for cert. filed, No. 22-919 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2023).
82.
Smith v. Nichols," 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 112, p. 118, 1874; Burt v. Evory," 133 U.S. 349, p. 358, 1890.
83.
R. A. Matthews
Jr
.,
Annotated Patent Digest
, vol.
4
, p.
26
:10,
2022
.
Google Scholar
 
84.
Sewall v. Walters," 21 F.3d 411, p. 415, 1994 (stating that determining who is the inventor “is nothing more than determining who conceived the subject matter at issue”).
85.
MacMillan v.
Moffett
," 432 F.2d 1237, p. 1240, C.C.P.A., 1970.
86.
Singh v.
Brake
," 317 F.3d 1334, p. 1340, Fed. Cir., 2003.
87.
R.
Abbott
, “
I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law
,”
B.C. L. Rev.
, vol.
57
, pp.
1079
–
1084
,
2016
.
Google Scholar
 
88.
M.
McLaughlin
, “
Computer-Generated Inventions
,”
J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y
, vol.
101
, pp.
224
–
238
,
2019
.
Google Scholar
 
89.
M.
McLaughlin
, “
Computer-Generated Inventions
,”
J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y
, vol.
101
, pp.
224
–
238
,
2019
.
Google Scholar
 
90.
Cf. Heard," 333 F.2d at 244. [Online]. Available: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-edwards-19.
91.
35 U.S.C. § 101.
92.
R.
Abbott
, “
I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law
,”
B.C. L. Rev.
, vol.
57
, no.
5
, pp.
1079
–
1084
,
2016
.
Google Scholar
 
93.
D.
Knemeyer
 and
J.
Follett
, “
Could Machines Become Creative?
,”
Towards Data Sci.
, Jun. 13,
2019
. [Online]. Available: https://towardsdatascience.com/could-machines-become-creative-49f346dcd3a. [Accessed: Feb. 28 2024].
Google Scholar
 
94.
B.
Kovach
, “
Ostrich with Its Head in the Sand: The Law, Inventorship, and Artificial Intelligence
,”
Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property
, vol.
19
, pp.
137
–
151
,
2021
.
Google Scholar
 
95.
Dirk Knemeyer & Jonathan Follett, Could Machines Become Creative?
,
TOWARDS DATA SCI.
(June 13,
2019
), https://towardsdatascience.com/could-machines-become-creative-49f346dcd3a [https://perma.cc/3AEUXME7] [Accessed: Feb. 20, 2024].
96.
Millar v Taylor," 4 Burr. 2303, 1769.
97.
C. M.
Arena
 and
E. M.
Carreras
,
The Business of Intellectual Property
.
Oxford, UK
:
Oxford University Press
,
2008
, pp.
134
–
137
, 143–144.
Google Scholar
 
98.
Ryan Abbott
,
I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and Future of Patent Law
, 57 B.C. L. REV. 1 079,
1096
(
2016
).
99.
W. M.
Schuster
, “
Artificial Intelligence and Patent Ownership
,”
Washington and Lee Law Review
, vol.
75
, pp.
1945
–
1950
,
2018
.
Google Scholar
 
100.
H. B.
Abrams
 and
T. T.
Ochoa
,
The Law of Copyright
, vol.
1
, section 4:1,
2022
.
Google Scholar
 
101.
Est. of Burne Hogarth v. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.,
” 342 F.3d 149, 2d Cir.,
2003
.
102.
17U.S.C.§201(b).
103.
R. Carl
Moy
,
Moy’s Walker on Patents
, 4th ed.
2020
, ch. 1, sec.
30
.
104.
17U.S.C.§201(b).
105.
Graham v. John Deere Co.," 383 U.S. 1, p. 9, 1966 ("[The monopoly] was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge.").
106.
T. W.
Dornis
, “
Artificial Intelligence and Innovation: The End of Patent Law as We Know It
,”
Yale Journal of Law & Technology
, vol.
23
, pp.
97
–
124
,
2020
.
Google Scholar
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2024 Author(s). Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.
2024
Author(s)
You do not currently have access to this content.