Artificial Intelligence: Can it be an Inventor or an Author?

14 July 2022 Dashboard Insights Blog
Author(s): Michelle Song

As the innovation paradigm in automotive industry shifted over time, artificial intelligence (“AI”) has deeply penetrated into operation of automotive industry. For example, integration of AI in automotive availed a broad range of consumer-friendly functions previously not navigated in automotive industry, such as autonomous driving, battery management, speech recognition. Some manufacturers seek to utilize robots that learn automotive manufacturing skills, such as design, part manufacturing, and assembly, to assist human workers. AI are also utilized in aftermarket services, such as maintenance of engine or battery performance. Unsurprisingly, automotive industry faces new intellectual property challenges including those traditionally faced by AI technology patents. What if an AI develops a method of navigation or designs a new automotive? Can such work be protected?

Both the United States Patent and Trademark Office and United States Copyright Office have consistently denied applications for intellectual property protection over AI-generated works because the AI-generated works lack “human” inventorship or authorship. However, we are seeing some recognitions of inventorship and authorship by AI in non-U.S. jurisdictions. On July 28, 2021, a patent purportedly invented by an AI (named “DABUS”) published in South Africa’s Patent Journal. Around the same time, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that AI-generated inventions qualify for patent protection. Similar recognitions are occurring in the copyright space. For example, Canadian Intellectual Property Office registered a copyright for a painting by AI titled Suryast in December 2021. A recent consultation of UK Intellectual Property Office concluded, maintaining UK copyright protection over AI generated works. 

At the consultation of UK Intellectual Property Office, respondents who supported removal of protection argued for lack of “originality” and potential hindrance of innovation by human creators that may result from volume of the work generated by AI, the view of which aligns with the current U.S. copyright law and majority of other countries throughout the world. Some proposed middle-ground of crafting a new right to protect AI-generated work by offering a protection of significantly shorter duration. In majority’s view, the current UK copyright protection over AI generated works appears to pose no harm; despite the protection offered, only one court case involving computer (although not AI) generated work has arisen until now. Acknowledging the use of AI is still in early stages, the UK Intellectual Property Office said, “[W]e will keep the law under review and could amend, replace or remove protection in future if the evidence supports [the change].” 

Indeed, the era of AI is yet to come, and we will see more changes in the law throughout the world as the era approaches. The direction to which these changes may occur remain in obscurity: the few currently offering protection may step back, more may join the group, or we may see a new system in compromise. Companies will need to keep an eye on these changes to adopt appropriate legal strategies and protection for their global portfolio of AI technology.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Author(s)