지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2020.10
- 수록면
- 123 - 152 (30page)
- DOI
- 10.31839/ibt.2020.10.31.123
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
As new developments in the field such as neural networks and machine learning have transformed the expectations of AI technology and what it may be capable of, the importance of AI grows exponentially not only in industrial and commercial spheres but also in educational, social and even cultural spheres of our society.
Given the importance of AI technology, it follows that the inventors and those involved in the commercialization of the technology would want to protect and exploit the economic value of the technology to its full extent. Obtaining a patent is still one of the most fundamental tools in protecting the economic value of an invention by reserving its exclusive rights to the owner of the patent. However, due to the recent tightening of the requirements in the field of patent law regarding the question of patent-eligibility, it is not entirely clear whether and to what extent AI technology could be patentable. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice v CLS Bank and subsequent decisions by the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) have cast doubt on whether patents that have already been issued for AI satisfy the new tests for patent eligibility and it is difficult to predict with any certainty whether new patent applications in these technologies could satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility due to the fact that these requirements are still in the process of evolution. The traditionally accepted incentive theory would indicate that a strong patent system is the foundation for strong innovation and provides motivation to inventors and offers a known mechanism to evaluate potential returns to potential investors. Although the recent cases have introduced a real element of uncertainty into the system, this will eventually diminish with an accrual of case law through evolving court decisions, and even perhaps new legislation. In the meantime, however, inventors and investors still need to be able to protect their AI technology with patents, even though patents may not necessarily offer a foolproof or ironclad protection they may once seemed to hold out, while knowing that the system was never a guarantee of any value in the invention.
This article provides a review of the recent decisions by the courts in the US, including the Federal Circuit on the issue of patentability of AI technology in order to draw out some guidance regarding how inventors and investors should approach this question.
Given the importance of AI technology, it follows that the inventors and those involved in the commercialization of the technology would want to protect and exploit the economic value of the technology to its full extent. Obtaining a patent is still one of the most fundamental tools in protecting the economic value of an invention by reserving its exclusive rights to the owner of the patent. However, due to the recent tightening of the requirements in the field of patent law regarding the question of patent-eligibility, it is not entirely clear whether and to what extent AI technology could be patentable. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice v CLS Bank and subsequent decisions by the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) have cast doubt on whether patents that have already been issued for AI satisfy the new tests for patent eligibility and it is difficult to predict with any certainty whether new patent applications in these technologies could satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility due to the fact that these requirements are still in the process of evolution. The traditionally accepted incentive theory would indicate that a strong patent system is the foundation for strong innovation and provides motivation to inventors and offers a known mechanism to evaluate potential returns to potential investors. Although the recent cases have introduced a real element of uncertainty into the system, this will eventually diminish with an accrual of case law through evolving court decisions, and even perhaps new legislation. In the meantime, however, inventors and investors still need to be able to protect their AI technology with patents, even though patents may not necessarily offer a foolproof or ironclad protection they may once seemed to hold out, while knowing that the system was never a guarantee of any value in the invention.
This article provides a review of the recent decisions by the courts in the US, including the Federal Circuit on the issue of patentability of AI technology in order to draw out some guidance regarding how inventors and investors should approach this question.
목차
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
Ⅱ. DEFINITIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Ⅲ. THE PROBLEM OF SOFTWARE PATENTABILITY
Ⅳ. INERPRETING ALICE: REVIEW OF RECENT CAFC DECISIONS
Ⅴ. CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
발명의 컴퓨터 구현 논의에 따른 특허제도 개선방안
산업재산권
2015 .01
-
Patent law
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2016 .12
-
특허소송제도와 활성화에 관한 검토
법과정책
2018 .01
-
특허제도에서 발명의 개념 및특허적격 판단 기준에 대한 고찰 - ‘자연법칙의 이용’의 개념을 중심으로 -
산업재산권
2015 .01
-
EU 단일특허와 특허법조약(PLT) 가입확대 등에 따른 글로벌 특허시스템 논의와 한국 특허법에 미치는 영향
IT와 법연구
2015 .01
-
최적의 특허 존속기간에 관한 연구
과학기술과 법
2023 .06
-
Valuable information concerning patents and patent law
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2020 .12
-
특허분쟁이 기업의 향후 혁신 활동에 미치는 영향
지식경영연구
2020 .01
-
Patent Depending : The Early Years
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2017 .12
-
Cases and materials on patent law
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2015 .12
-
해외 특허출원이 한국 제조업 기업 수출과 매출에 미치는 영향 실증분석
무역학회지
2022 .12
-
North Korea's Dualistic Patent System and Law: Trends, Challenges, and Technological Focus
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2024 .06
-
특허 분쟁리스크 예측모델 개발연구
기업경영연구
2017 .01
-
KCAB’s Arbitration of U.S. Patent Exhaustion Disputes Over Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Technologies
중재연구
2018 .01
-
How to write a patent application
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2015 .12
-
특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 적절한 이전 방법에 관한 고찰 -대법원 2019. 10. 17. 선고 2016두58543 판결에 대한 비판적 분석을 겸하여-
지식재산연구
2020 .09
-
Patent Reform
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2017 .12
-
스마트 수술 의료시스템 기술 생태계에 대한 국가 간 비교 연구: 특허 데이터 분석을 중심으로
Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management
2020 .02
-
The United States patent law.
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2020 .12
-
공동발명자 인정기준의 법제화 방안
법학연구
2020 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2020-360-001551452