•  
  •  

Home > School of Law > Law School Journals > ILJ > Vol. 23 > Iss. 2 (2022)

 

San Diego International Law Journal

Kelley Sheehan

Library of Congress Authority File

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79122466.html

Document Type

Comment

Abstract

This Article will begin by exploring the abilities of current A.I. technology, the effects of current law on innovation in the A.I. industry across different countries, how countries have dealt with the increasing applications in the field, the important applications of A.I., and how more predictable patentability might be achieved based on goals for the U.S. industry and modeling other countries.

A discussion of patent law treatment of A.I. in the U.S., China, and Japan sets the stage for how each country has adapted to attempt to address this growing industry. From there, solutions and suggestions will be made on how the U.S. can improve treatment of A.I. to encourage more consistent guidelines and expectations for patent eligible subject matter in A.I. Clarity in these guidelines will ensure continued innovation in the A.I. space.

As far as solutions, the Article argues that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should consider updating the process for patent approvals in A.I. through more frequent meetings discussing A.I.-specific developments and a more specialized approach to A.I. patent eligibility and disclosure requirements in the form of a new exception. Additionally, more open communication with A.I. inventors in the form of regular USPTO reports or example case studies on A.I. patentability and a small group of specialized examiners for A.I. related technology would further address the lack of predictability. The goal must be to keep the U.S. relevant at the forefront of A.I. innovation by providing clear and predictable guidelines on expectations of A.I. patent applications and approvals.

Download

Share

COinS