Laura Sheridan, Google's Head of Patent Policy, dives into AI's evolving role in innovation and patent law. She discusses the surprising statistic that 17% of current inventions benefit from generative AI. Sheridan clarifies Google's position that AI cannot be labeled as an inventor, exploring the implications for patentability with human contributions. The conversation also touches on the urgent need for clearer patent guidelines as AI technologies continue to reshape the landscape of intellectual property.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly integrated into innovation, with 17% of Google's patents involving AI contributions to the invention process.
Despite AI's significant role in idea generation, Google maintains that inventorship is fundamentally a human attribute requiring oversight and contribution.
Deep dives
AI's Evolving Role in Innovation
Artificial intelligence is increasingly playing a role in the innovation process, with around 17% of patent submissions at Google incorporating generative AI. The company has adapted its invention submission forms to gather data on AI's contributions to new ideas, enabling them to measure its impact more accurately. This shift reflects a broader trend where generative AI supports various stages of invention, from literature review to brainstorming specific features. While the percentage indicates a growing reliance on AI tools, Google maintains that AI should not be classified as an inventor.
The Distinction Between AI and Human Contribution
Google asserts that AI serves as a tool rather than a source of inventive output, emphasizing the need for human oversight in the innovation process. Although AI can provide valuable insights and suggestions for materials or designs, it does not independently create inventions. The conversation highlights the complexity of determining what constitutes a significant human contribution for patent eligibility, as the boundaries between AI-generated ideas and human ingenuity become blurred. This ongoing debate raises essential questions about defining inventorship in the context of advanced technologies.
Navigating Patent Law and AI Regulations
The current state of patent law seems adequate for addressing issues related to AI, though there are concerns about the resources available to patent examiners managing a growing volume of AI-related applications. Training and funding are essential for patent offices to maintain efficiency and make informed decisions about patent applications involving AI contributions. Google's interest in establishing clear rules around AI's role in patentability reflects the company's broader aim of reducing uncertainty in the legal landscape. Ensuring clarity in this area is crucial for encouraging innovation and protecting intellectual property rights.
Patent lawyers at Google had a question: How many of the company’s big, new ideas were developed using artificial intelligence? The patent world has been grappling for years with whether or not AI can be considered an inventor, and Google needed to know how the technology is being used today. On POLITICO Tech, Google’s head of patent policy, Laura Sheridan, joins host Steven Overly to explain the findings and why the company doesn’t think AI counts as an inventor.