IP Docketers

Australia artificial intelligence

AI patent invention is a label in South Africa and Australia.

To protect patent rights for ideas created wholly by an Australia artificial Intelligence AI system, South Africa and Australia are tackling the issue of AI patent invention. In South Africa, the legislation governing patents is the Patents Act 1978. This act defines what forms a patentable invention and lays out the process for obtaining a patent. Generally, a patentable invention must be new, involve an inventive step, and be capable of industrial application.

In Australia, the legislation governing patents is the Patents Act 1990. This act also defines a patentable invention. And lays out the process for obtaining a patent. The requirements for patentability are like those in South Africa, with a story needing to be novel, non-obvious, and useful.

Both countries have laws that govern the patenting of AI-related inventions and the protection of AI-related designs. I would test them on the same criteria as any other invention.

South Africa’s approval of a patent application

In South Africa, obtaining a patent begins with filing a patent application with the South African Patents Office. The application must include a detailed description of the invention. And any drawings or diagrams necessary to understand it. Once the application is in writing, it will be gape into by a patent examiner to determine if it meets the requirements for patentability. This examination process may include a search for prior art, which is any published information. And that may be relevant to the invention.

The patent will be present if the examiner determines that the invention is patentable. The applicant will be informed if the patent examiner determines that the invention is not patentable. And entitled to amend the application or appeal the decision.

The approval process for a patent application in South Africa can take several years, depending on the AI patent invention’s complexity and the Patents Office’s workload.

Australian Artificial Intelligence Federal Court decision in DABUS’s favour

The DABUS team achieved considerably more significant success in Australia. On July 30, 2021, Justice Jonathan Beach of the Federal Court of Australia rendered a decision that overturned a previous decision by the Deputy Commissioner of Patents. The Deputy Commissioner ruled that the DABUS patent applications had expired before the Federal Court’s ruling. This is because they had violated formal requirements by naming an AI system rather than a human as the inventor. Justice Beach’s ruling paves the path for AI systems to keep inventor status when a human patent applicant picks out as the assignee, even though it does not explicitly sanction a patent grant to DABUS.

In his 228-paragraph ruling, Justice Beach goes into extensive technical detail about both general advancements in neural networks. And those explicitly made by Dr Thaler for DABUS. Before DABUS, AI systems typically combined two different artificial neural network types. The first one creates neural “memories” based on chaotic disturbances or self-stimulations of the AI network’s connections. And another that assesses these memories to detect values like novelty or utility. When these systems work together, they simulate human cognition by creating original outputs in response to issues and bolstering the best solutions.

DABUS, in contrast, employs several memory-creating neural networks, each representing a linguistic or visual concept. These networks parallel construct different topologies inside a specific conceptual area. These topologies are what makeup DABUS’ memories. DABUS may respond to new circumstances without human input as these topologies get more complicated by developing new information patterns instead of just identifying solutions from established practices.

Justice Beach agrees that there are several applications for utilising AI systems as inventors. Still, his examination of these applications in the pharmaceutical sector provides a largely positive view of how this technology will change creativity. According to Justice Beach, Australia artificial intelligence has been second-hand to identify potential lead structures that can develop pharmaceutical drugs in an analysis of a report issued last year by the European Commission on the threat of Australia artificial intelligence to IP Docketers’ rights.

Can decode The genetic code of viruses to develop vaccines, and AI systems can identify novel uses for existing drug compounds. They can also predict relevant disease biomarkers to help choose patient populations that will yield more predictable results in clinical trials for novel drugs.

Justice Beach noted that “inventor” is not defined by the statutory provisions of Australia’s Patent Act. Or the PCT, which governs international patent applications. That language is related to ownership and patent applications. And patent requests do not disqualify AI systems from being considered inventors. Justice Beach came to the opposite conclusion from the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, who believed that “inventor” was a noun describing an agent that acts and that many such agent nouns. Such as “the computer” or “dishwasher” frequently refer to inanimate objects rather than people.

The emergence of creative machines

The emergence of creative machines, also known as AI-generated or AI-created art, is an area of research that has gained attention in recent years. These machines can produce a wide range of art forms, from visual art and music to poetry and literature. The AI algorithms used in these machines are sketching to analyse patterns in data. And generate new, unique output based on those patterns.

One of the critical challenges in this area is determining whether the work produced by these machines can be thought about as truly “creative” or simply the result of complex algorithms following a set of rules. There is an ongoing debate among experts in the field about whether AI-generated art can be thought about as original or if it is a form of human-assisted creation.

Another critical issue is handling AI-generated art’s legal and ethical implications. Such as the question of authorship and ownership. Some experts propose to consider AI as the creator of the work. And to recognise the right of the AI to own the intellectual property of the work it created.

The field is still evolving, but it’s looking for the future. AI-generated art will play a more significant role in the art world. And raise new questions and challenges. This is all about AI patent invention. For more info, please stay connected with us.


Related Posts

Leave A Reply