A Look at DABUS Case: An Outlook toward the Future Patent System

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Theology & Political Science, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Visiting Professor in Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jolt.2024.365991.1007232

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence, as one of the most important grounds of new technologies, infiltrates all aspects of human being life. one of these aspects is the inventions created by artificial intelligence, and this question will arise that if artificial intelligence would benefit legal rights of inventions? what is the necessity of recognition of this legal right, and what are the challenges of recognition in the framework of traditional system of intellectual property law? The current article studies the possibility of inventorship of artificial intelligence, with a focus on DABUS, the famous case in which DABUS is named as an inventor in a  patent application. The current research tries to examine the possibility of reconciling the requirements of invention patentability with the specifications of artificial intelligence, and investigate the possibility of inventorship and ownership of artificial intelligence using an analytical-descriptive method while addressing the process of DABUS case. Although DABUS patent applications have thus far failed in most legal systems, most requirements of patentability coincide with the features of artificial intelligence. Even Civil law countries acknowledge that originality cannot be assessed according to artistic quality, and it is necessary to apply different standards of originality for different types of works. Thus, the basis of IP protection should be reviewed. This study concludes that the recognition of DABUS as an inventor in some international patent offices can be the beginning of making changes in new patent system and also the recognition of other legal rights, namely the personality right of artificial intelligence.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

ابوذری، مهرنوش (1401). حقوق و هوش مصنوعی. تهران: میزان.
امیرشاه‌کرمی، سید حمید و شاکری، زهرا (1402). چشم‌اندازی از نظام حق اختراع در پرتو کاربرد هوش مصنوعی. سیاست‌نامة علم و فناوری، (3)13، 44 ـ 57.
جعفری‌تبار، حسن (1393). ملک معنی در کنار: گفتاری در فلسفة حقوق مالکیت فکری. تهران: انتشارات شرکت سهامی انتشار.
حبیبا، سعید و مهردار قائم‌مقامی، گلریز (1401). امکان‌سنجی حمایت از الگوریتم‌های به‌کاررفته در هوش مصنوعی در قالب کپی‌رایت (مطالعة تطبیقی در اتحادیة اروپا و امریکا). تحقیقات حقوقی، 100، 87 ـ 110.
رجبی، عبدالله (1396). حقوق محصولات فکری پدیدآمده از غیر انسان: شرح حقوق کنونی و نقدی بر رویکرد لایحة حمایت از مالکیت فکری. حقوق خصوصی، (2)14، 241 ـ 265.
شاکری، زهرا و جعفرپور، یاسمن (1401). امکان‌سنجی اعمال حقوق معنوی مؤلف تحت فناوری‌های نوین اطلاعات و ارتباطات. حقوق فناوری‌های نوین، 6، 16 ـ 29.
شبیری زنجانی، سید حسن (1389). حقوق مالکیت فکری در آثار مبتنی بر رایانه (برگرفته از رایانه). پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، (2)14، 157 ـ 193.
صاحب، طیبه (1394). دشواری‌های حقوقی حاکم بر بهره‌برداری از آثار ادبی و هنری مجهول‌المالک. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، (1)19، 28 ـ 49.
قیصری، زهره؛ محمدخانی، پریسا و شاکری، زهرا (1396). چالش‌های حقوقی اختراعات ناشی از هوش مصنوعی. کنفرانس ملی کامپیوتر، فناوری اطلاعات و کاربردهای هوش مصنوعی. اهواز.
میرحسینی، سید حسن (1395). حقوق اختراعات. تهران: میزان.
Abbott, R. (2016). I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers & Future of Patent Law. Boston College Law Review, 57(4), 1079-1126.
-----------. (2018). Everything is Obvious. UCLA Law Review, 66(2), 1-57.
-----------. (2019). The Artificial Inventor project. Wipo Magazine, 1, 3. Available at:www.Wipo.int/wipo_Magazine/en/2019/06/article_0002.html.
Abouzari, M. (2022). Law and Artificial Intelligence. Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation. (in Persian)
Amir shahkarami, S.H. & Shakeri, Z. (2023). An overlook from patent system in the light of function of Artificial intelligence. Politics of science & technology, 13(3), 42-57. (in Persian)
Banterle, F. (2018). Ownership of Inventions Created by Artificial Intelligence. AIDA, 2-25.
Blok, P. (2017). The inventors new tool: Artificial Intelligence-How does it fit in the European Patent System?. European Intellectual Property Review, 39(2), 69-73.
Bonadio, E., Mcdonagh, L., & Arvidsson, C. (2018). Intellectual property aspects of robotics. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(4), 655-676.
Bonadio, E., Mcdonagh, L., & Dinev, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence as Inventor: Exploring the Consequences for Patent Law. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 1, 48-66.
Bridy, A. (2012). Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author. Stanford Technology Law Review, No. 5, 1-28.
Cath, C. (2018). Governing Artificial Intelligence: Ethical, Legal & Technical opportunities & challenges. Phil.Trans.R.Soc.A 376:20180080. pp. 1-8.
Currey, R. & Owen, J. (2021). In the Courts: Australian court finds AI Systems can be Inventors. Wipo Magazine 3, 2021. Available at: http://www.Wipo.int/Wipo_MAgazine?en/2021/03/Article_006.html.
Deshpande, R. & Kamath, K. (2020). Patentiability Inventions created by Artificial Intelligence-DABUS Claims from an Indian prespective. Journal Of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15, No 11, 879-889.
Frazer, E. (2016). Computers as Inventors-Legal & Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law. Script ed, 13(3), 305-333.
Gheisari, Z., Mohammad Khani, P., & Shakeri, Z. (2017). Legal Challenges About Inventions Due Artificial Intelligence. National Conference In Computer, Technology of Information & AI Applications, Iran, Ahvaz, 1-19. (in Persian)
Habiba, S. & Mehdar Ghaem Maghami, G. (2022). Feasibility study about Legal Proptection for Algorithms used in Artificial Intelligence in Copyright System: Comparative study in EU & USA. Legal Researches, 100.87-110. (in Persian)
Hattenbach, B. & glucoft, J. (2015). Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys & Artificial Intelligence. Stanford Technology Law Review, 32, 49-69.
Hill, R.K. (2016). What An Algorithm Is?. Philosophy & Technology, 29(1), 35-59.
Hughes, R. (2019). EPO Refuses "AI Inventor" Applications in short order-AI Inventor team intend to Appeal. Available at: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/epo-refuses-ai-inventor-applications-in.html.
Jafaritabar, H. (2014). Property means next to it, A discourse about philosophy of Intellectual property law. Tehran: Publication of publishing company. (in Persian)
Kayssi, A. (2019). Artificial Intelligence. Maroun Semaan,Faculty of Engineering and Architecture (American University of Beirut), p. 3.
Martin, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Designated as Inventor-An Analysis of the recent EPO case Law. GRUP Int, 918-920.
Matulionyte, R. (2022). AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?. JIPITEC, 13(2022) 99, para 1, 1-24.
McLaughlin, M. (2018). Computer-Generated Inventions. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3097822. pp. 1-32.
Mirhosseini, S.H. (2016). Law of Inventions. Tehran: Mizan Law Foundation. (in Persian)
Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., & Talwalkar, A. (2018). Foundation of Machine Learning. 2th ed. MIT Press.
Papadopoulou, A. (2021). Creativity in crisis:Are The creations of Artificial Intelligence worth Protecting?. JIPITEC 12(2021) 408, para 1, 408-418.
Picht, P.G., Brunner, V., & Schmid, R. (2022). Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property Law: From Diagnosis to Action. Max Plank Institute for Innovation & competition Research, Paper No. 22-08, 1-41.
Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old ‘‘Skill and Labour’’ Doctrine Under Pressure. Max Plank Institute for Innovation & competition Research, 44, 4-34.
Rajabi, A. (2017). Intellectual property law for non-human artworks: An explanation of modern law & realize about the strategy of bill of legal protection in intellectual property. Private law, 14(2), 241-265. (in Persian)
Rich, M. (2015). Machine Learning, Automated suspicion Algorithms, & The Fourth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 871-929.
Saheb, T. (2015). Legal difficulties govern on exploit of unknown ownership intellectual works. Comparative law researches, 19(1), 28-49. (in Persian)
Shakeri, Z. & Jafarpoor, Y. (2023). Feasibility study about apply moral rights upon new technologies of information & communications. law of new technologies, 6, 16-29. (in Persian)
Shubairi Zanjani, H. (2010). Intellectual property law in artworks based on computer. Comparative law researches, 14(2), 157-193. (in Persian)
Surden,Harry (2014).Machine Learning and Law.Washington Law Review,Vol.89:87.87-115.
Tipu, Umar Farooq and bibi, Kainat and Quddus, Usman and Hamza, Ayesha, Artificial Intelligence: A Study of Present Legal Status with Future Prospects ( 2021). Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI) 2021.
Tabrez, E. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Inventions & Patent disclosure. Pennstate Law Review, 125(1), 147-221.
Tull, S. & Miller, P. (2018). Patenting Artificial Intelligence:Issues of Obviousness, Inventorship & Patent Eligibility. The Journal of Robotics,Artificial Intelligence & Law, 1(5), 313-325.
Tung, J.R. (2016). Who Owns the creation of an Artificial Intelligence?. Available at: http://blogs.Findlaw.com/Technologist/2016/08/Who-Owns-the-creation-of-an-artificial-intelligence-?.
Vertinsky, L. (2017). Thinking Machines & Patent Law. Emory legal studies Research Paper, 1, 15, 1-23.
Yanisky, Sh.R. & Kwan, K.S. (2017). 3D Printing the road ahead:The Digitization of Products when Public safety Meets Intellectual Property Rights- A New Model. Cardozo law Review, 38, 101-129.
Yanisky, SH. & Liu, X. (2018). When Artificial Intelligence produce inventions: The 3A Era & Alternative Model for Patent Law. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 2215-2263.
Private Law
Volume 21, Issue 1
Spring $ Summer
April 2024
Pages 71-89

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics