Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Intellectual Property Rights for Software, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Related Inventions: A Comparative Analysis


Affiliations
1 University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
 

The growth of digital technology has been one of the highlights of the 21st century. This has led to the growth of the development of new Software and Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs). The grant of Intellectual Property Rights protection to these inventions has been questionable since they have been explicitly excluded from IP protection statutes across the world. However, as time progresses, legislatures across the world have been under pressure to provide some sort of protection to such inventions. This has resulted in amendment of laws and a criterion has been devised to protect CRIs and software. The approach adopted towards the same varies from country to country. Moreover, there has also been a rise of inventions generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI has made the process of invention much easier since the mental element is taken care of by the AI. However, questions are raised regarding the grant of IP protection to such inventions for the lack of an inventive step. The paper analyses the scope of protection granted to Software and CRI across different legal systems in the world. It also explores the possibility of the application of these principles to AI or the modification of existing principles to allow for the patentability of AI.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, Software Patent, Computer Related Inventions, Copyright Law, Patent Law, TRIPS
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Sunray Computers v Cce, 1997 (72) ECR 916.
  • Ericsson v Lava, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8229: (2015) 62 PTC 90.
  • Yahoo v IPAB, W.P.NO.4462 OF 2010.
  • https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55771347-7ee1-48f5-871f-12e61d735f74.
  • Ferid Allani v Union of India, WP(C) 7 of 2014, decision dated 12th December, 2019.
  • Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S. 62, 72 (1972).
  • Diamond v Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) I (1991).
  • Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526, 31 USPQ 2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
  • State St. Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
  • re Toma, 575 F.2d 872, 197 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 853.
  • re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 214 USPQ (BNA) 673.
  • re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152, 156 n.5.
  • re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982).
  • EPC, Art. 52(1).
  • EPC, Art. 54.
  • European Software Patent Statistic, available at http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/namcu/.
  • Case T-208/84, VICOM, 1987 E.P.O.R. 74 (EPO Tech. Bd. App. 1986).
  • T 0026/86– 3.4.1.
  • Pension Benefit Systems P‟ship Case, T 0931/95 - 3.5.1.
  • Baker v Selden, 1978 AIR 1613.
  • Whelan Association Inc. v Jaslow Dental Laboratory, 479 U.S. 1031 (1987).
  • Arnstein v Porter, (1946)154 F.2d 464.
  • Lotus v Paperback, (1990) 740 F. Supp 37.US District Court.
  • Apple Computer Inc. v Microsoft Corp, (1994) 35 F. 3d 1435 (9th Cir.).
  • Computer Associates International v Altai, (1992) 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.)
  • Google v Oracle, 576 U. S. 1071 (2015).
  • https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/the-awkward-grant-of-patents-to-artificial-intelligence-11635267216589.html/.
  • https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/topics/utility_models.html.

Abstract Views: 81

PDF Views: 35




  • Intellectual Property Rights for Software, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Related Inventions: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract Views: 81  |  PDF Views: 35

Authors

Faham Ahmed Khan
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract


The growth of digital technology has been one of the highlights of the 21st century. This has led to the growth of the development of new Software and Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs). The grant of Intellectual Property Rights protection to these inventions has been questionable since they have been explicitly excluded from IP protection statutes across the world. However, as time progresses, legislatures across the world have been under pressure to provide some sort of protection to such inventions. This has resulted in amendment of laws and a criterion has been devised to protect CRIs and software. The approach adopted towards the same varies from country to country. Moreover, there has also been a rise of inventions generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI has made the process of invention much easier since the mental element is taken care of by the AI. However, questions are raised regarding the grant of IP protection to such inventions for the lack of an inventive step. The paper analyses the scope of protection granted to Software and CRI across different legal systems in the world. It also explores the possibility of the application of these principles to AI or the modification of existing principles to allow for the patentability of AI.

Keywords


Artificial Intelligence, Software Patent, Computer Related Inventions, Copyright Law, Patent Law, TRIPS

References