Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
August 27, 2021
As a follow up to the June 11, 2021 post entitled “Application of AI in Legal Services,” this post examines the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in an additional legal area -- eDiscovery in litigation. One of the many time-consuming tasks in litigation is the review of documents to assess whether (a) a document is relevant to any outstanding discovery request or mandatory disclosure, and, if so, (b) if the document is covered by at least one factor that would prevent its disclosure (e.g., due to attorney work product, attorney-client privilege, spousal-privilege, and/or another privilege). Furthermore, document review often is performed with an eye toward flagging certain documents as being important to an issue in the case, either as part of a defense or as part of a party’s case in chief. <... Read more
June 11, 2021
written by: Kasumi Kanetaka
A question that is often asked is why there are so many lawyers? The question is often paired with questions about why lawyers spend so much time on seemingly insignificant tasks and why they are always busy and have a poor work-life balance.<... Read more
May 28, 2021
Recently, I had the privilege of participating in a couple of virtual conferences as a panelist on issues related to artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP). Normally when I participate as a speaker at a conference I speak on many of the issues you may have read in our previous blog posts. I tend to focus heavily on patent prosecution issues in obtaining an AI patent, whether in the U.S. or around the globe. However, these two recent panels had a particular focus on how to protect data as an asset. While the issue of protecting data (or information in general) has long been a grey area issue in the realm of IP, this issue has risen to the forefront due to AI and the rise of “Big Data.” <... Read more
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
April 16, 2021
Supervised machine-learning models are at the heart of some of the biggest advances in artificial intelligence (AI) that have emerged in the past decade. This post revisits the nuts and bolts of drafting claims in this area, and includes two different industry examples of implementing supervised machine learning: medical imaging and speech detection.<... Read more
Edwin D. Garlepp
April 9, 2021
Our recent post “Tracking AI Prosecution Trends at the U.S. Patent Office” presented USPTO data which suggests that future prosecution of AI inventions may be less focused on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 and more focused on the traditional requirements of §§ 102, 103 and 112. This post is the first of a two part series looking into the challenges that AI inventions present to one of these traditional requirements: patent disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). In this Part I, we identify the unique disclosure issues with AI inventions. In Part II, we provide practice tips for describing and enabling AI inventions.<... Read more
James R. Love
March 17, 2021
As has been discussed here previously, the current position of the USPTO is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor. The USPTO’s position on the matter has been challenged in district court in Thaler v. Iancu, et al, 1:20-cv-00903. Although the case is not yet complete, it is likely that the court will side with the USPTO and hold that AI cannot be considered to be an inventor of a US patent application based on 35 U.S.C. § 100(f), which clearly states that “the term ‘inventor’ means the individual, or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” Although Thaler, the Plaintiff in the case, has made a number of policy arguments for inclusion of AI inventorship, a ruling in his favor would be a surprise.<... Read more
March 5, 2021
written by Alec Royka
Following last week’s post on this blog (AI Patent Trends in the U.S. Patent Office: Is the U.S. Losing Its Lead?), we look deeper into the filing data of AI applications to better understand how the USPTO’s treatment of inventions in this field have evolved over time. AI applications are increasing rapidly, but what happens when these applications get into substantive prosecution? Patent practitioners who understand this information can better help their clients avoid some of the pitfalls present, potentially resulting in higher allowance rates and less office actions to disposition. The data presented throughout this post was compiled using Juristat and focuses on the USPTO’s Art Units which handle the greatest number of AI filings (2122, 2129, 2121, 2124, 2123, 2128, 2127), further filtered by USPC 706, which relates to “Data Processing – Artificial Intelligence.”<... Read more
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
February 25, 2021
As noted in an earlier post on this blog (Using AI to Track AI Patents at the USPTO), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to see tremendous growth in the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI). While the USPTO’s October, 2020 Report “Inventing AI: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents” utilizes a broader set of metrics to gauge the number of AI filings generally, a simplified claims-based metric shows that U.S. applicants appear to be losing ground as the dominant filers in this field to increasingly diverse global competition. <... Read more
January 29, 2021
Terminology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have become commonplace – much like “text message,” “email,” and “smart device.” Turn on the news and you are very likely to hear such terms in various capacities. Such new-found popularity is bound to cause industries to revamp their thinking; their organization; their goals. It is also bound to instill unease in those concerned that the machines will take over.<... Read more
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
November 12, 2020
According to a new study just released by the Office of the Chief Economist at the USPTO (“Inventing AI: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents”), the number of annual AI applications filed at the USPTO more than doubled between 2002 to 2018, with broad growth across all technologies, inventor-patentees, and organizations. The USPTO performed the study to determine “whether AI technologies are growing in volume and, importantly, whether they are diffusing across a broad spectrum of technical areas, inventors, companies, and geographies.” See page 2.<... Read more