Artificial Intelligence “AI“& Computer Programs

Putting the “I” into Intelligence

We recognize that creative thinking is required to write patent claims. No truer statement exists than in its applicability to new technologies, especially AI and the development of artificial neural networks “ANNs.” 

Our knowledge of the technical and legal framework governing computer-implemented inventions “CIIs” is highly prized, with our principal partner in this area having over thirty years of direct experience in the field of software protection and a decade of experience working with world-leading experts in the field of ANNs and their applications. Over this time, we have repeatedly pushed the boundaries of patentability, with recent work before the High Courts dealing with the extent of statutory exclusion to patentability and the current disconnect in reasoning applied by the UKIPO and European Patent Office on the nature of artificial neural networks, their training regimes, and the fundamental definition of what amounts to a program for a computer and how this differs from trained ANNs. 

Our team’s deep understanding of the relevant legal issues means that we are skilled at crafting patent specifications that meet the strict but differing requirements of patent offices worldwide.

In this respect, whilst counselling clients about the issues arising with prosecution and long-term strategies which support obtaining commercially worthwhile patent monopolies, we have deliberately built complementary technical aspects into patent specifications and seeded arguments required for later-stage prosecution and/or appeal in the understanding that patent examiners:

(a) have demonstrated that, by and large, they generally only have a rudimentary understanding of complex new technologies, especially in the field of AI; 

(b) frequently require “spoon-feeding” on the nuisances of new AI technology and its application;

(c) apply outdated jurisprudence and legal tests that do not sit well with protections of “all fields of technology,” as required by Art.27 TRIPS and its incorporation into Art.52(1) EPC;

(d) will, at least in early-stage prosecution, invariably not have direct access to inventors; and

(e) apply subjectivity to assessments arising potentially through a lack of understanding of legislative intent.

For more information, please contact Bruce C. Dearling, Shareholder at Hepworth Browne. E-mail: bcd@hepworthbrowne.com