Problems and issues to address in this article are as follows-:
Problem / Issue 1 -:
How is AI defined?
For example -: “AI inventions”, AI-generated invention”, “AI-assisted invention”, AI application”) for
the purpose of this questionnaire. A common understanding of these key terms is necessary.
Otherwise, member states will not be sufficiently clear. It might be useful to refer to definitions
that have already been agreed in the context of standardization work. (As there is no standardization of AI and its interpretation as such with any technical and legal accreditation done yet by any organisation).
Problem 2 -:
Patents -: Inventorship and ownership.
Another problem is based on the assumption that “it would now seem clear that inventions can
be autonomously generated by AI”. This premise needs to be clarified and supported, especially
given that the possibility of AI solving problems autonomously was recently considered to be “a
science fiction”. Without a sound understanding of how AI can produce inventions
autonomously and in what way AI-generated inventions differ from AI-assisted inventions (when
humans use AI as a tool to invent), it appears difficult to assess the relevance of questions
regarding inventorship and patent ownership.
Inventive Step or Non-Obviousness
When considering the inventive step of inventions containing AI technologies, is there any specific things which should be taken into account? For example, does an invention of mere a systemization of manually-operated tasks using AI involve inventive step?
Problem 4 -:
Patentable Subject Matter and Patentability Guidelines
Computer-assisted inventions and their treatment under patent laws have been the
subject of lengthy discussions in many countries around the world. In the case of AI-generated
or -assisted inventions:
(i) Should the law exclude from patent eligibility inventions that are autonomously
generated by an AI application?
(ii) Should specific provisions be introduced for inventions assisted by AI or should such
inventions be treated in the same way as other computer-assisted inventions?
Problem -: 5
General Policy Considerations for the Patent System
A fundamental objective of the patent system is to encourage the investment of human
and financial resources and the taking of risk in generating inventions that may contribute
positively to the welfare of society. As such, the patent system is a fundamental component of
innovation policy more generally. Does the advent of inventions autonomously generated by AI
applications call for a re-assessment of the relevance of the patent incentive to AI-generated
(i) Should consideration be given to a sui generis system of IP rights for AI-generated
inventions in order to adjust innovation incentives for AI?
(ii) Is it too early to consider these questions because the impact of AI on both science
and technology is still unfolding at a rapid rate and there is, at this stage, insufficient
understanding of that impact or of what policy measures, if any, might be appropriate in
Problem -: 6
Authorship and Ownership
AI applications are capable of producing literary and artistic works autonomously. This
capacity raises major policy questions for the copyright system, which has always been
intimately associated with the human creative spirit and with respect and reward for, and the
encouragement of, the expression of human creativity. The policy positions adopted in relation
to the attribution of copyright to AI-generated works will go to the heart of the social purpose for
which the copyright system exists. If AI-generated works were excluded from eligibility for
copyright protection, the copyright system would be seen as an instrument for encouraging and
favoring the dignity of human creativity over machine creativity. If copyright protection were
accorded to AI-generated works, the copyright system would tend to be seen as an instrument
favoring the availability for the consumer of the largest number of creative works and of placing
an equal value on human and machine creativity.
I. Should copyright be attributed to original literary and artistic works that are
autonomously generated by AI or should a human creator be required?
II. In the event copyright can be attributed to AI-generated works, in whom should the
III. Should consideration be given to according a legal personality to an AI
application where it creates original works autonomously, so that the copyright would
vest in the personality and the personality could be governed and sold in a manner
similar to a corporation?
Most of the art generated today by AI is based on some previous art work ( Machine learning ) ,
if e.g. AI has created a new Spanish song sung by an English famous artist by using her voice
the credit should also go to the artist whose voice was used.
Due to these reasons - should a separate sui generis system of protection (for example, one
offering a reduced term of protection and other limitations, or one treating AI-generated works
as performances) been visaged for original literary and artistic works autonomously generated
by AI ?
Problems in respect to DATA
General Policy Issues
AI is all about data and as data is still easily available to big companies i.e. Google, FB ,MS etc.,
Public institutions must play a role to make data accessible to SMEs and small organizations to
exploit this advanced technology which is much more accessible to these Big players currently.
Further Rights in Relation to Data
whatever is done, it must be sure that data is still available for the development of AI technology
equally without giving unfair advantage to any group. Data should not be free for those who
accumulate it, nor should it be seen as capital.
Data Privacy /Data Protection/ Purpose Limitation
When regulating or non-regulating data, the issues of personal data protection must be taken into account. In this respect, the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR has now set new standards at EU level. With the broad definition of personal data in the GDPR, a distinction between non personal and personal data is problematic. Quite often private users are producers” of the data raw material, especially with their connected devices. Data analytics can de-anonymize previously anonymized personal data.
TECHNOLOGY GAP AND CAPACITY BUILDING
The number of countries with expertise and capacity in AI is limited. At the same time, the
technology of AI is advancing at a rapid pace, creating the risk of the existing technology gap being
exacerbated, rather than reduced, with time. In addition, while capacity is confined to a limited
number of countries, the effects of the deployment of AI are not, and will not be, limited only to the
countries that possess capacity in AI.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IP ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Accountability for Decisions in IP Administration
It is important to only use AI algorithms in decision making process which could explain the
decision they reached at i.e. which factors contributed to the decision taken by the machine. Also
IPOs should make sure we do not have any data bias in our training data which could discriminate
based on sex, gender, race etc.
Innovative elements (original aspects of the work)
First of all, to take this contrast approach is itself a very unique idea and its very crucial
intersection of law and technology to consider where AI intersects IP & ICT policies and vice
On the other hand to take the approach of (How these all policies impact on AI & its Technology
applications, development and research in future)
So, this contrast and approach is very innovative itself and I will take all possible aspects with
broader and deeper understanding of its impacts on each other.
Original aspects of work will be-:
1) All present policies and its relations with emerging technologies and balancing of it.
2) Determine the intersection points and defining there standards.
3) To take both approaches with Digital single market, Data economy and comparison
studies of different countries .
4) Determining and defining the scope by considering past cases and future projections.
- By Sahil Tharia