Now more than ever, technology is influencing the way we do business, communicate, move through and around the world, access and manage our homes, receive and administer healthcare, make purchases, secure information, and protect our most valuable property. Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape across our internationally recognized corporate, finance, intellectual property, and litigation practices. MoFo Tech brings together our insights relating to fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and as-a-service technologies, driverless cars, drones, fintech, computer hardware and software, the Internet of Things, semiconductors, and telecommunications. The MoFo Tech blog offers real-time, in-depth analyses of the trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

testimage.jpg

MoFo Tech

Scott Llewellyn’s practice focuses on complex litigation in federal and state courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes. Over the past decade, he has worked on some of the most significant, high–profile IP cases involving technology for televisions, smartphones, and self–driving cars, relying on 40 years of experience with computer hardware and software. Scott also has significant experience with business divorce cases before courts and arbitrators, involving a mix of trade secret, patent, tort, and contract claims relating to technology development and implementation.Scott also has successfully tried general commercial arbitration and agency matters, briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court, and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver City Attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.Scott also has an active pro bono practice, having worked on a variety of criminal and immigration appeals, and having represented Colorado criminal defense and mental health organizations in high–profile suits against the state of Colorado for violations of the constitutional rights of defendants.At MoFo, Scott serves on the board of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation. In the broader legal community, he serves on the boards of the Colorado Lawyers Committee and Drop in the Bucket (a charity that builds wells and sanitation systems in sub–Saharan Africa).After law school, Scott clerked for the Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District of Wyoming, and the Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Ninth Circuit. He was also previously an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

llewellyn_scott_blog_150x150.png

llewellyn_scott_common_640x280.jpg

llewellyn_scott_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

llewellyn_scott_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

llewellyn_scott_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Scott Llewellyn’s practice involves complex litigation before state and federal courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes for high-tech companies, to which he brings more than 35 years of experience with computer hardware and software, in particular relating to the processing and transmission of audio, video, voice, and other types of data. Mr. Llewellyn has also tried commercial arbitration and agency matters; briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court; and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver city attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.

Scott F. Llewellyn

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

Mofo Tech testimage

Announcements

Welcome to the MoFo Tech Blog

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Government Contracts Insights Blog

Govcon

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

MoFo+ Together

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

MoFo Tech

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

MoFo Tech Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

The European Patent Office has denied two patent applications on the grounds that an AI system cannot be listed as the inventor. 
For the first time, the Europe

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Telecommunications

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Blockchain

Cloud Services + SaaS

European Union

Financings

Fintech

Hardware

Intellectual Property

Internet of Things

Litigation

Mergers + Acquisitions

Privacy + Data Security

Regulatory

Software

Tech Talks

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Subscribe

Can AI Be an Inventor? Not at the European Patent Office.

Can AI Be an Inventor? Not at the European Patent Office. | MoFo Tech

Alistair Maughan

Anna Yuan

The European Patent Office has denied two patent applications on the grounds that an AI system cannot be listed as the inventor. For the first time, the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued a ruling on its approach to patent applications that designate artificial intelligence (AI) systems as inventors. In January 2020, the EPO published its reasons for rejecting two patent applications where the inventor named on the applications was an AI system called “DABUS.” The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has also rejected the applications on similar grounds.  What did DABUS “invent”?The “Artificial Inventor Project,” a group of patent attorneys, filed two patent applications at the EPO covering inventions that were supposedly “invented” by DABUS, an AI system developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler (the “Applicant”). One application was directed to a light emitting device that could be used as an emergency signal beacon and the other was directed to a food container device.Patent applications for these inventions were also filed at the UKIPO and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  The decisions of the EPO and UKIPOThe EPO and the UKIPO both addressed three key issues in their decisions:<ol><li>Can an AI system be named as an inventor in a patent application?</li></ol>The EPO and the UKIPO respectively applied the formal requirements of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the UK Patents Act (UK PA), both of which require an inventor to be a named person. The EPO went one step further, stating that the requirement for an inventor to be a named person appears to be an international standard, citing a study that it had conducted on the concept of AI inventorship in multiple countries.While the UKIPO acknowledged that the idea of an AI inventor had not been contemplated when either the EPC or the UK PA was drafted, because the wording of the UK PA is clear and no other court had supported the concept of an AI inventor, the UKIPO was unable to decide that an inventor could be anything else besides a “natural person.”<ol><li>Would naming a natural person as an inventor mislead the public?</li></ol>Before the EPO, the Applicant argued that incorrectly listing a human as the inventor would mislead the public. The EPO rejected this argument, stating that the EPO does not verify the accuracy of named inventors. The EPO also pointed out that, because the application would be published, any member of the public could question or challenge its contents in national courts. <ol><li>Can an AI system transfer the right to apply for a patent to its owner? </li></ol>The Applicant argued that he obtained the right to apply for the patents from DABUS. However, both the EPO and UKIPO rejected the idea that a machine or AI system could own any intellectual property rights. If an AI system is unable to own any intellectual property rights, then it is unable to assign or transfer such rights to its owner.Will these decisions discourage the distribution of information about innovations involving AI?The UKIPO considered this point, but decided that the dissemination of information about innovations involving AI may occur in a number of ways, not just through the publication of a patent application or patent.Additionally, the UKIPO noted that recognizing an AI system as an inventor would not affect the likelihood that information about AI innovation would be available to the public because this decision would ultimately be made by the owners or developers of the AI system.What happens next?Currently, it appears that an inventor must be a named human person for a patent application filed at the EPO and the UKIPO.However, the UKIPO observed, in its decision, that the present patent system may not properly cater to inventions by AI systems, and encouraged a wider debate on this issue.As the Applicant has the right to appeal both decisions, higher courts may provide additional guidance on this issue in the future.The USPTO has not rejected these applications. On August 27, 2019, the USPTO published a Notice in the Federal Register requesting information from the public on AI patent-related issues, including whether current patent laws and regulations regarding inventorship need to be revised to take into account inventions where an entity or entities other than a natural person contributed to the conception of an AI invention or any other invention.London-based Trainee Solicitor, Danial Alam, contributed to the writing of this article.

More

Of Counsel

Current State of the AI VC Financing Market

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Tech and Antitrust: Policy Shifts in the Second Trump Administration

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Responsible Tech: Policy Becomes Practice

AI Dynamics: Regulatory Landscape and Industry Insights

Introducing the MoFo Tech Law Summit – Innovation Under Regulation

LinkedIN