Definition Of Invention Research Articles

AI창작물의 특허보호 방안

Today's AI invention refers to cases where data preprocessing, such as data structures for learning which process collected data, learning model definitions required for learning, physical implementations, physical implementations performed by applying Deep Learning learning programs, and derived learning completion models (AI-based SW) are implemented in computer-like hardware in algorithmic form, and these AI inventions satisfy the establishment of invention and are included in a target to be patented. However, input data are input into the learning completion model (AI-based SW), and the AI creation in that the AI creates by the input data is not patentable because it is not the human invention but the invention generated by the AI, which is non-natural, under the current patent law. Therefore, there is a problem that the AI technology is not sufficiently patent-protected under the current patent law. In particular, there is various problems: (i) whether the AI creation created by the AI can be regarded as an invention created by humans (natural people), (ii) countries around the world recognize only humans as inventors, whether the AI can be recognized as an inventor, (iii) whether there is a way to recognize the AI as an inventor, (iv) whether there is a way to solve the problem of authority and duty as a rightful person, responsibility for exercise of rights, etc. that may arise if the AI is recognized as an inventor. In this article, we considered the revised plan of the Patent Act to include AI-generated creations as targets to be patented. As a result, the definition of invention under Article 2 of the Patent Act 1 will be specific to human inventions, such as Article 101 of the US Patent Act, and If there is a substantial "human contribution" for AI to create, not an artificial act of humans, the revised plan is needed to introduce AI-generated AI creations and definitions of AI inventions on the premise of that "human contribution." For those who are eligible for patents, it is needed to introduce a regulation in Article 33 of the Patent Act stating that the inventor for AI creations is to be the human on the premise of "human contribution."

Ready for Patenting

Patent law has tried to find a middle ground between a vision of invention as a mental act and a competing vision that focuses on the actual building of a working product. The definition of invention in the 1952 Patent Act incorporates both conception and reduction to practice, sometimes choosing the first to conceive as the inventor and at other times choosing the first to reduce an invention to practice. But in trying to walk that middle ground, patent law has actually discouraged inventors from getting their inventions to work in practice, rewarding those who run to the patent office before they are fully done with the invention and giving them precedence over those who take the time to make sure their invention works by building and testing it. The problem is even worse under the new America Invents Act passed in 2011, which encourages patentees to file their applications as soon as possible. The fact that the law encourages inventors to file first and figure out later how (or even if) the invention works for its intended purpose is unfortunate. It produces underdeveloped patent applications that do not communicate useful information to the world. It facilitates the rise of patent trolls who obtain patents but never bother to produce a product, instead making a business of suing those who do. And it pushes people to patent things just in case, adding more patents into a system already overburdened with them.I reject proposals to go to the opposite extreme, requiring patentees to make products. But we should not be in the position in which we currently find ourselves: treating inventors less favorably if they try to build and test their inventions In this paper, I offer some thoughts on ways we might seek to protect inventors who actually decide to build and test their products.

The Question for Wide Circle: How Long You Should Endure Yet Patent Systems Without the Legal Definitions of Invention and its Derivation - Patentable One?

The patent systems lack logic. These postulates something phenomenon called ‘invention’, but in fact no satisfactory legal definition of ‘invention’ has ever appeared, and the courts, in their search for guiding rules, have produced an almost incredible tangle of conflicting doctrines and the needful decisions are often made by the help of case law. Aaron X. Fellmeth, professor of Law (USA, 2012) has accentuated this situation especially pointedly: “After 220 years of progressively developed patent statutes and jurisprudence, the concept of invention, so central and fundamental to patent law, has become one of the most misunderstood”. Honestly, majority patent systems, including large ones as USA, Germany, United Kingdom, etc. and international agreements and conventions - TRIPS, PCT, EPC have not been able to this day to define the basic concepts of patent law - ‘invention’ and its derivation - ‘patentable one’. It should be also patent practitioners concern who are preparing for Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court nowadays. In this connection professor of law Lemley, Mark A. (USA, 2012) has mentioned thought-provokingly in his scholarly paper ‘Point of Novelty’: “We award patents to inventors because we hope to encourage new ideas. For this reason, the fundamental requirement for getting a patent is that you have invented something new. It is curious, then, that patent law itself purports to pay no attention to which aspects of a patentee’s invention are in fact new. A patented invention is legally defined by its claims - written definitions of the invention. And those written definitions virtually never call out what it is that is new about the patentee’s invention... As that court (United States Court of Appeals - T.T) has put it, there is no legally recognizable . . . ‘gist,’ or ‘heart’ of the invention”. In this paper I dare to point out and once more verify (in addition to my earlier papers) that there is still exists legally recognizable ‘gist’ or ‘heart’ of the invention, namely the novel inventive idea for solving concrete (old or new) technical problem. Therefore in the future we must in addition to the technical features meet in the claim of a patented invention - written definition of the invention - the explicitly formulated concrete technical problem and for solving it n o v e l inventive idea what the patentee actually created, i.e. all in all in fact a new thing (in the case in question - information or knowledge item as the patentable invention) that did not exist before. And as the result of it the updated claim construction will correspond to the legal definition of patentable invention and the claim of concrete patentable invention would successfully and concurrently replace traditional summary of essence of the invention in the patent application as well in the title page of patent document. In order to comprehend the latter it must be first make clear that Patent Law as property one does not create things. Patent Law only provides a structural framework and a set of rules that specify and control the legal relationships between persons and intangible things. Thus inventive idea exists even in the absence of all law. And it can be considered as axiom, that due to the nature of such idea, it cannot be possessed if others know it. In any case the inventive idea, as legally recognizable ‘gist’ or ‘heart’ of the invention must be novel before the invention can be considered as property. It does not also forget that the most general meaning of the notion ‘invention’ in the present context is ‘the act of inventing’.

What is the 'Invention'?

Patent law is in flux, with recent disputes and change in doctrine fueled by increased attention from the Supreme Court and en banc activity by the Federal Circuit. The natural reaction is to analyze each doctrinal area involved on its own. However, upon a closer look, many of the cases concern a single, fundamental dispute. Conflicts in opinions on such issues as claim interpretation methodology and the written description requirement are really disagreements as to what exactly is the “invention” the courts should be considering.There are two concepts of invention currently in play in patent decisions. The first is an “external invention” definition, where courts define the invention by the detailed technology discussion in the patent specification’s descriptions and drawings. Other decisions invoke a “claim-centered invention” definition that relies almost exclusively on the claim, a single sentence at the end of the patent. These two definitions can be judged against common patent theories to determine which best fits the theories’ narratives. The external invention definition, by grounding exclusivity around what the inventor has actually done or plans to do, is more likely to cause the patent to operate as these theories assume. And once a definition of invention is selected, doctrinal conflicts and ambiguities are more easily resolvable.

Rethinking Rights in Biospace

Twenty-five years ago, Federal courts opened the door to the biotechnology revolution by granting patents on genetic inventions. The nature of such inventions, however, increasingly conflicts with the implications of rules created for mechanical products. In particular, across five disparate doctrines, courts are struggling with the question of whether the definition of a biotech invention should include things beyond the state of the art at the time of the invention. Reaching beyond the state of the art may make sense for mechanical inventions, but it is wreaking havoc in doctrines related to biotechnology. A doorknob is a doorknob, regardless of whether it is made of wood or glass. A doorknob has no parts we can't identify, and there is no hint that the doorknob may be integrating with the door in ways we never dreamed of. Can we really say, however, that an antibody is an antibody, no matter how it works or what materials it is made out of? This article argues that in uncertain arts such as biotechnology, the definition of an invention should be limited to the state of the art at the time of the invention. Granting rights beyond knowledge at the time of the invention projects an enormous shadow across the future and creates untenable results. The temptation to restrain that reach has led to strange doctrinal twists and an unworkable body of law. After twenty-five years of experience, it is time to rethink our view of the proper shape of rights in this realm.

The Prediction of Technical Change

PREDICTION usually requires counting, dating, and measuring, and so plunges us at once into semantics, the perpetual bugbear of statistics, the endemic disease that more or less infects all our figures. For statistics begins with counting, and counting begins with definition of the thing to be counted -and inventions can hardly be defined. Patents are not quite so bad, and we shall take them up later. Inventions, like many things and notably people, don't stay the same, but are perpetually evolving, growing, squirming out of their definitions. You may have heard of the Irishman who complained that his pig wouldn't stay counted. That is supposed to be a joke on the Irishman; but he was dead right it was the pig that was false and unstatistical. For that pig began as a little shoat, and ate and grew night and day until he became a 5oo-pound hog, a creature utterly different in every pertinent aspect from the little suckling piglet. So he couldn't stay counted Similarly in invention, suppose we consider television. That sounds simple, since we all know what television is. Or do we? Was it already television in I847 when Souvestre satirically predicted it? Or did it begin in I877 when the first apparatus was built, or in I882 when the scanning disk was added, or in I9OI when Fessenden designed a wireless system? Or was it Zworykin's modern cathode ray receiver of I929 that constituted the invention of television, with the kinescope, and some experimental broadcasts the next year? Or is our date I928 or I937 when regular broadcasting began? Or should it be some future date when with color, three-dimensional vision, binaural hearing, and worthy programs, the art will at last enter the prodigious destiny of the home theater? And is this television, at whatever stage, to be counted always as invention? If so, our statistics mean no more than that one pig. Definition of invention

The Definition of Invention in Patent Law

The Definition of Invention in Patent Law