The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession

The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession

Different definitions are given to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), but in brief AI is the ability of a computer program or a machine to think and learn, that is they work on their own without being encoded with commands. ML is a subset of AI; it automates analytical model building to find hidden insights in data without being explicitly programmed where to look or what to conclude. Automation is frequently confused with AI/ML, however, automation is fixed solely on repetitive, instructive tasks, performing a job, and then thinking no further. Considerable interest is given to all these technologies as they have potential to increase productivity or revolutionize almost every industry.

Workers in the patent profession require a range of skills and these can be roughly divided as: hard skills, those which are teachable and measurable abilities, such as technical and legal knowledge, systems and process operation; and, soft skills, such as communication, adaptability and initiative, things which may be considered added value. It is in hard skills that AI/ML can eventually outperform a human. Specifically to the patent profession, steps have already been taken to integrate AI/ML into hard skill work for example: software that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to draft patents such as Specifio; or, using AI to drive patent prior art searches (UKIPO Feasibility study - AI-assisted patent prior art searching). As attorneys and patent examiners integrate with and rely on AI to assist with drafting and searching patent applications, in time using AI will be accepted as the norm. However, this means there will be a need to identify value adding work and prepare future proof business models based on this.

More recently the question of whether AI can be an inventor has been posed. DABUS is a “creativity machine” which comprises a first neural network made up of a series of smaller neural networks, trained on various knowledge domains, to generate novel ideas, and a second “critic” artificial neural network to monitor the first to determine if the ideas a sufficiently novel compared to the knowledge domains. DABUS designed an invention for interlocking food containers that are easy for robots to grasp, for which a patent was applied for in the name of DABUS. Unfortunately for DABUS, the UKIPO decided that the law requires an invention to be by a “natural person”, the EPO and USPTO have followed suit. Although it was noted that when the law was drafted inventions by “non-human” inventors was not contemplated.

Separately the question of whether Artificial Intelligence systems in themselves can be patented is still being tested. Consideration must be given to whether the subject matter is “eligible” according to the law presently and how the “person skilled in the art” is determined relating to inventive step/obviousness. The current position with patenting an AI/ML system is a generic purpose is not sufficient, the purpose must be a specific technical one, the claim must be functionally limited to the technical purpose, either explicitly or implicitly, and, defining the nature of the data is not enough, direct technical relevance of the results matters. The recent decision of the EPO - T0161/18, concluded to not grant a patent on an invention for determining cardiac output by the aid of an artificial neural network. The invention which is based on machine learning in particular in connection with an artificial neural network was considered insufficiently disclosed for not disclosing suitable input data, therefore the claimed method differed from the prior art only by an artificial neural network, the training of which is not disclosed in detail, using the artificial neural network does not lead to a special technical effect which could be the basis for an inventive step.

The patent profession as part of the wider legal sector is identified as an area where AI/ML and greater automation will cause extensive changes in the coming years. Shifts have already occurred converting historical roles into new skilled roles to develop and manage technologies. Artificial Intelligence programs can be used for virtual assistants to help clients and support in-house functions. The use of data and technology is growing in the legal sector and there is scope for greater application in future. In the patent profession some firms are making use of the large volumes of patent information and data they have to create value for their business using advanced analytics.

What is clear is that the impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning within the patent profession is going to continue to grow, as the technology becomes ever more ubiquitous in all aspects. The challenge is to get ahead of the technology and be proactive in the approaches to its adoption and adapting the current processes to harness its unquestionable benefits.

Matthew Veale, Patent Analytics Team Leader

Related News

Does owning IP rights improve economic performance?
news

Does owning IP rights improve economic performance?

A recent study performed by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has shown that companies which own at least one patent, trade mark or registered design generate on average 20% higher revenues per employee and pay their staff on average 19% higher wages compared to companies that do not own any of these intellectual property (IP) rights.

Let it go!
news

Let it go!

Keeping an IP budget afloat despite sunk costs.

The cost of securing IP can be heavily front loaded. Examples of such costs include patent drafting, pre-filing searches, filing fees, etc. These costs become “sunk” costs in that they cannot be recovered. Because IP protection can be a relatively long process, at any time during the process there are likely to be significant “prospective” costs: future costs that may be wholly or partially avoided depending on actions taken.

Turkish Declarations of Use
news

Turkish Declarations of Use

Have you recently validated your European patent in Turkey?  Did you know that in addition to paying annual renewal fees, Turkish law also requires you to submit a public declaration stating whether you have actively worked your invention in Turkey?

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis
news

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis

UK businesses are fighting for survival during the continuing COVID-19 outbreak and trying to trade under difficult conditions, the likes of which haven’t been seen in the living memory of most business people. If you’re afraid that your business is going to the wall, it probably isn’t the top of your mind to pay for a patent application for your new technology or a registration of the trade mark for your brand new clothing range, right?  Where is the money coming from to invest in such luxuries as IP, we hear you say, when staff are being furloughed and orders have been postponed?

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?
news

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?

The European Patent Office has announced that videoconferencing will become the norm for oral proceedings before examination and opposition divisions until at least 15 September 2021. But is this a taste of what the future holds for oral proceedings at the EPO?

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search
news

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search

On 12 November 2019, the EPO and CNIPA agreed to enhance their bilateral co-operation to give patent applicants filing an international patent application in English at the CNIPA, the choice to opt for the EPO as their ISA. A two year pilot programme launched on 1 December 2020, offers applicants filing international applications with the CNIPA or the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) the opportunity to select the EPO as their ISA and as their International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA), rather than CNIPA.

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar
news

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar

In October 2020, the UK Government declared that the territorial effect of five important IP treaties would be extended to cover Gibraltar from 1 January 2021.  These treaties are the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Protocol (on International trade marks), the Nice Agreement (on trade mark classification), and the Berne Convention (on copyright). Following on from this, a bill was passed in on 11 December 2020, making some amendments to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar.

Much Ado About Nothing
news

Much Ado About Nothing

For a long time, a source of tension among UK trade mark and design attorneys was the fact that the UK was one of the few EU member states to abide by a decision to allow attorneys from any European Economic Area country to represent clients in proceedings before any national office of an EU member state.  With this in mind, one of the ironies of Brexit is that, from 1st January 2021, UK trade mark and design attorneys will (in general – please see below for a super-important exception!) lose the right to represent clients before the EU IPO

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo