To: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Subject: IP Policy in relation to Artificial intelligence issues. Date: 13/02/2020 In response to the request for comments by World Intellectual Property Organization

Abstract:Patents Issue 1: Inventorship and Ownership In most cases, AI is a tool that assists inventors in the invention process or constitutes a feature of an invention. In these respects, AI does not differ radically from other computer-assisted inventions. However, it would now seem clear that inventions can be autonomously generated by AI, and there are several reported cases of applications for patent protection in which the applicant has named an AI application as the inventor. In the case of inventions autonomously generated by AI: (i) Should the law permit or require that the AI application be named as the inventor or should it be required that a human being be named as the inventor? In the event that a human inventor is required to be named, should the law give indications of the way in which the human inventor should be determined, or should this decision be left to private arrangements, such as corporate policy, with the possibility of judicial review by appeal in accordance with existing laws concerning disputes over inventorship? It is too early to give inventorship to AI without setting the policy on the basis of solid evidence proving that AI invention gives bigger benefit than negative impact. Therefore, the law should not permit the AI application to be named as the inventor of the invention. The inventor can be only a person who contributes to the invention’s conception in the form of devising an idea or a plan in the mind. However, the AI applications should be related to the human who added a value to the AI invention.
Law,Computer Science
What problem does this paper attempt to address?