The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance asserting that, in the realm of intellectual property, only natural humans are eligible to receive official protections. The announcement, soon to be entered into the federal register, stipulates that, due to legal reasons and the nature of patents as incentives for human ingenuity, only “natural humans” can be granted patents. This clarification comes amid ongoing discussions about the legal personhood of AI. The guidance outlines that AI systems are not individuals and, therefore, cannot be inventors under patent law. It maintains that, despite AI-assisted inventions being considered patentable, at least one human must be designated as the inventor.
The document delves into the intricacies of AI involvement in the patenting process. It addresses scenarios where AI models contribute to the design and mechanism of a patentable device, examining whether the AI qualifies as a “joint inventor” or “coinventor.” The guidance emphasizes that AI-assisted inventions are not automatically deemed unpatentable but underscores that AI systems themselves lack the legal status of inventors. Consequently, for any given patent claim, at least one human inventor must be identified. The guidance introduces the concept that a human inventor must demonstrate a “significant contribution” to the invention, raising questions about how this criterion is defined.
The guidance discusses scenarios where a natural person designs an AI model, and the AI independently designs a patentable device. It navigates the complexities of determining whether the AI qualifies as a joint inventor or if the lack of a human inventor precludes the patentability of the device. It also explores the issue of intellectual domination over an AI system, clarifying that mere ownership or oversight of an AI system without a substantial contribution to the conception of the invention does not confer inventor status. The guidance aims to apply existing legal statutes and precedents to the evolving landscape of AI technology, maintaining that the intent is not to define or limit AI’s capabilities but to uphold the existing framework until any legislative changes are introduced.
