is an intellectual property professional most recently having served as an Intellectual Asset Manager with Halliburton, owning one of the largest patent portfolios in North America. Paul originally entered the Oil and Gas industry as a formulation chemist, and has managed preparation and prosecution for a wide variety of scientific disciplines including chemical compositions, artificial intelligence, and remediation technologies. He enjoys espresso and playing the cello.
For the past 60 years, scientists have been able to utilize artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other technological advances to “promote the general science …”. U.S. courts have increasingly come under pressure to not only allow AI-directed applications as patentable subject matter, but also from a small yet determined and growing contingency of IP professionals, to recognize the AIs themselves as the inventors. The EPO recently handed down guidance that AI could not be recognized as inventors on patent applications. The purpose of this piece is not to debate the merits of whether or not AI should be given inventor status on applications which, it has been argued, they are rightly due—nor should it be. It is important, however, to peek beyond the looking glass into a future where AI are given status in the United States that has, as of the writing of this piece, been reserved for human beings. Let’s explore a few main issues.