Reddie & Grose’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) newsletter, a collection of insights into how patents can protect AI related inventions, and what AI can do for the intellectual property world.
Insights: artificial intelligence
Following the European Patent Office’s decision to refuse two European patent applications in which an AI system, referred to as DABUS, was designated as inventor. The Board of Appeal hears arguments requesting that the decision to refuse be set aside and that the DABUS AI system be named as the inventor as the actual deviser of the invention.
What the government is doing to remove the legislative barriers to operating autonomous vehicles on UK’s public roads
AI is increasingly used in all areas of businesses to give companies an edge over their competitors, and the music industry is no exception. One example of such a use over the past few decades is how people have used AI to write music. This involves feeding an AI large amounts of data from music and the AI learning what musical characteristics and patterns a listener will enjoy. AI has even been able to create music to fit a specific genre.
The UK Intellectual Property Office published, on 7 September 2020, a call for views on the future of Artificial Intelligence and the UK IP framework.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly an important tool in industry. Not just in computer science but in almost all fields of industry. And where an AI innovation provides a benefit to users, many would like to protect it with a patent. The European Patent Office (EPO) recognises this. In 2017 the EPO published a study on the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ that identified AI as a key enabling technology. As we reported previously, the EPO has held a conference discussing the patentability of AI. And the EPO has recently announced that their Berlin branch is to become a centre of expertise in AI. So it is worth looking at how AI inventions can be patented in Europe.
On 9th July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down their emphatic judgement concerning Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) in Santen v INPI (C‑673/18). For those interested in the details and history of the case they can be found in my earlier blog, published in January, where I discussed the Advocate General’s preliminary and non-binding opinion. As far as this judgement is concerned the conclusion is clear: “a marketing authorisation (MA) cannot be considered to be the first MA … where it covers a new therapeutic application of an active ingredient, or of a combination of active ingredients, and that active ingredient or combination has already been the subject of an MA for a different therapeutic application” – emphasis added Put another way, the CJEU has decided that the literal wording of Articles 1(a), (b) and 3(d) of the SPC Regulation mean what they say. The previous CJEU decision in Neurim is consigned to the scrapheap.
rocery delivery service Ocado was forced to temporarily suspend parts of its online service last month due to coronavirus (Covid-19). The panic buying induced by the virus resulted in a tenfold increase demand. However, even before this unprecedented surge Ocado has been steadily growing over recent years. A quick Google search shows the impressive growth of Ocado’s share price since its initial public offering. Investment in technology and intellectual property (IP) have played a major role in this growth.
Enter your email address here to receive our monthly bulletin of IP news and developments.