Tech · MIT Technology Review
Instead, the key question going forward may be whether or not any human contributed enough to be named
Compiled by KHAO Editorial — aggregated from 1 source. See llms.txt for citation guidance.
◌ Single Source
Abbott’s worry is that if US policy excludes AI-generated outputs from protection, that could put a damper on future drug development.
Key facts
- But in 2022, an appeals court in Washington, DC, said these “metaphysical matters” were beside the point
- There needs to be a human inventor or there’s no invention and no patent,” says Sarah Korman, a patent attorney who is now chief business officer and legal officer of Isomorphic Labs, an Alphabet
- As the US Patent and Trademark Office has itself acknowledged, “an AI system—like other tools—may perform acts that, if performed by a human, could constitute inventorship under their laws
- Abbott’s worry is that if US policy excludes AI-generated outputs from protection, that could put a damper on future drug development
Summary
When the biotech company Insilico Medicine used its computer models to propose a promising drug for pulmonary fibrosis, it enthusiastically claimed that the molecule had been “discovered by” its generative AI platform. Insilico leads a pack of companies using AI to rapidly come up with drug ideas humans might never think of, potentially speeding the race to new cures. However, when it came time to file for an all-important patent to protect that new chemical structure, the company made no mention of AI. US courts reached that conclusion after Ryan Abbott, a partner at the LA law firm Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, brought a pro bono test case naming an AI called DABUS as an inventor of a better food container, whose intricate geometric surface lets it transfer heat well and stack easily.