Response

AI Listening Session - West Coast

Register to Request to Speak

Date: May 08, 2023,

Time: 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. PT

Location: Stanford University, Paul Brest Hall

555 Salvatierra Walk, Standford CA 94305

Instructions:

Each speaker will have limited time to provide remarks.
If you have submitted comments to the AI and Inventorship RFC on the regulations.gov website, please provide the tracking number you received.
If you have not submitted comments on regulations.gov, please select questions, provide your remarks in the text boxes or by file attachment (see attached file).

1. How is AI, including machine learning, currently being used in the invention creation process? Please provide specific examples. Are any of these contributions significant enough to rise to the level of a joint inventor if they were contributed by a human?

3. If an AI system contributes to an invention at the same level as a human who would be considered a joint inventor, is the invention patentable under current patent laws? For example:
a. Could 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 be interpreted such that the Patent Act only requires the listing of the natural person(s) who invent(s), such that inventions with additional inventive contributions from an AI system can be patented as long as the AI system is not listed as an inventor?
b. Does the current jurisprudence on inventorship and joint inventorship, including the requirement of conception, support the position that only the listing of the natural person(s) who invent(s) is required, such that inventions with additional inventive contributions from an AI system can be patented as long as the AI system is not listed as an inventor?
c. Does the number of human inventors impact the answer to the questions above?

4. Do inventions in which an AI system contributed at the same level as a joint inventor raise any significant ownership issues? For example:
a. Do ownership rights vest solely in the natural person(s) who invented or do those who create, train, maintain, or own the AI system have ownership rights as well? What about those whose information was used to train the AI system?
b. Are there situations in which AI-generated contributions are not owned by any entity and therefore part of the public domain?

5. Is there a need for the USPTO to expand its current guidance on inventorship to address situations in which AI significantly contributes to an invention? How should the significance of a contribution be assessed?

6. Should the USPTO require applicants to provide an explanation of contributions AI systems made to inventions claimed in patent applications? If so, how should that be implemented, and what level of contributions should be disclosed? Should contributions to inventions made by AI systems be treated differently from contributions made by other (i.e., non-AI) computer systems?

7. What additional steps, if any, should the USPTO take to further incentivize AI-enabled innovation (i.e., innovation in which machine learning or other computational techniques play a significant role in the invention creation process)?

8. What additional steps, if any, should the USPTO take to mitigate harms and risks from AI-enabled innovation? In what ways could the USPTO promote the best practices outlined in the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights1 and the AI Risk Management Framework2 within the innovation ecosystem?

9. What statutory changes, if any, should be considered as to U.S. inventorship law, and what consequences do you foresee for those statutory changes? For example:
a. Should AI systems be made eligible to be listed as an inventor? Does allowing AI systems to be listed as an inventor promote and incentivize innovation?
b. Should listing an inventor remain a requirement for a U.S. patent?

11. The USPTO plans to continue engaging with stakeholders on the intersection of AI and intellectual property. What areas of focus (e.g., obviousness, disclosure, data protection) should the USPTO prioritize in future engagements?