«Pseudoinventions» generated by algorithms. A threat to the state of the art?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51302/ceflegal.2022.9259Keywords:
pseudoinvention, artificial intelligence, patent, state of the artAbstract
The current existence of creative algorithms, such as All Prior Art or All the Claims, whose main objective is to create or generate as many inventive results as possible in order to make them public with the intention of «democratizing» hypothetical ideas related to inventions and thus avoid the so-called patent trolls, calls into question concepts as relevant for Patent Law as «prior art». It is fair to say that most of the results generated by these creative algorithms (in our opinion, pseudoinventions) lack any sense or logic whatsoever, but nevertheless, given that the cost of creating and publishing them computationally is practically nil, in the event that one of such results can be considered valid from the point of view of patent law, this circumstance will increase the level and volume of knowledge (information) incorporated into the state of the art to be taken into consideration by the person skilled in the art who has to assess novelty or inventive step in a patent application. The situation described above invites, then, to review some traditional concepts of the current patent system, especially the one referred to the state of the art which, in addition, since it is present in practically all legal systems, requires a study from a comparative perspective in order to be able to propose an adequate solution to the new reality described and in accordance with the current times.
Downloads
References
Bercovitz, A. (1987). Novedad y actividad inventiva como requisitos de patentabilidad. Jornadas sobre la Nueva Ley Española de Patentes, Grupo Español de la AIPPI, Barcelona, 131-141.
Bercovitz, A. (1993). Las reivindicaciones de la patente de invención. Derecho PUCP: Revista de la Facultad de Derecho, 49, 163-189.
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
Cataldo, V. di (1988). I brevetti per invenzione e per modelo. Giuffrè.
Chien, C. V. (2009). Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents. North Carolina Law Review, 87.
Fischer T. y Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology – an empirical analysis of trolls’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1.519-1.533.
Franzosi, M. (2001). Novelty and non-obviosuness – the relevant prior art. CASRIP Publication Series: Reconciling Int´l Intellectual Property, 7, 74-86.
Gómez Segade, J. A. (1988). La Ley de Patentes y Modelos de Utilidad. Civitas.
Hamborg, F., Elmaghraby, M., Breitinger, C. y Gipp, B. (2017). Automated Generation of Timestamped Patent Abstracts at Scale to Outsmart Patent-Trolls. Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval and Natural Language Processing for Digital Libraries, 1, 101-106.
Hansen, B. y Hirsch, F. (1997). Protecting inventions in Chemistry. Commentary on Chemical Case Law under the European Patent Convention and the German Patent Law. Wiley-VCH.
Hattenbach, B. y Glucoft, J. (2015). Patents in an era of infinite monkeys and artificial intelligence. Standford Technology Law Review, 19(32), 32-51.
Kaplan, J. (2017). Inteligencia artificial. Lo que todo el mundo debe saber (Trad. J. C. Ruiz Franco). Teell.
Luzzato, R. (1998). Campo di protezione e novità nel brevetto europeo. RDI, 247-261.
Mandarola, M. (2005). El sistema de las Creative Common. El Profesional de la Información, 14(4), 285-289.
Martínez Pérez, M. (2018). Derecho de patentes versus derecho de defensa de la competencia en la Unión Europea: ¿una relación de complementariedad? Cuadernos de Derecho Trasnacional, 10(1), 372-393.
Martínez Pérez, M. (2020). Patent Trolls y Derecho de la Competencia. Los usos ofensivos de los derechos de patente. Tirant lo Blanch.
McDonough III, J. (2006). The Myth of the patent troll: An alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory Law Journal, 56, 189-228.
Miller, R. (2015). AP’s «robot journalists» are writing their own stories now. The Verge, enero. https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7939067/ap-journalism-automation-robots-financial-reporting
Moravec, H. (2000). Robot: mere Machine to Transcendent Mind.Oxford University Press.
Niro, R. P. y Greenspoon, R. P. (2007). Are Patent Trolls Really Undermining the Patent System? The Licensing Journal, 8-14.
OEP (Oficina Europea de Patentes). (2014). Directrices de Examen de la Oficina Europea de Patentes (Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office), noviembre. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/56911A5DDF284B55C1257D81005FA359/$FILE/guidelines_for_examination_2014_en.pdf
OEP (Oficina Europea de Patentes). (2022). Directrices de Examen de la Oficina Europea de Patentes(Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office), marzo. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_iv_3.htm
Pino Díez, R., Gómez Gómez, A. y Abajo Martínez, N. (2001). Introducción a la inteligencia artificial: sistemas expertos. Redes neuronales artificiales y computación evolutiva. Universidad de Oviedo.
Pohlmann, T. y Opitz, M. (2013). Typology of a Patent Troll. R&D Management, 43(2), 103-120. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47262/
Roy, B. N. (1998). Novelty and obviousness in Patent Law. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 3, 59-67.
Sánchez García, L. (2018). Las invenciones generadas por Inteligencia Artificial y sus implicaciones para el Derecho de Patentes. Informática y Derecho. Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático (2.ª época), 5, 49-84.
Sánchez García, L. (2020). El inventor artificial. Un reto para el Derecho de Patentes. Aranzadi.
Sandburg, B. (2001). You may not have a choice. Trolling for Dollars. The Recorder, 30 de julio, 1-6. http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf
Sauri, O. R. (2015). La actividad inventiva como requisito de patentabilidad [Tesis doctoral]. Universidad de Barcelona.
Seymore, S. B. (2010). The Teaching Function of Patents. Notre Dame Law Review, 85(2), 621-669.
Sheiness, D. y Canady, K. (2006). The importance of getting inventorship right. Nature Biotechnology, 24(2), 153-154.
Reitzig, M., Henkel, J. y Heath. C. H. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey – Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of ‘being infringed’. Research Policy, 36(1), 134-154.
Thaler, S. (1996). Neural nets that create and discover. PC AI, 10(3), 16-21.
Vidal-Quadras Trías de Bes, M. (2005). Estudio sobre los requisitos de patentabilidad, el alcance y la violación del derecho de patente. J. M. Bosch.
Yordy, L. R. (2021). The Library of Babel for Prior Art: using artificial intelligence to mass produce prior art in Patent Law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 74(2), 521-562.
