生物技术公司Insilico Medicine利用人工智能模型发现了一种治疗肺纤维化的候选药物，在公开宣传中称该药物由AI"发现"，但在专利申请时仅将5名人类列为发明人，其中包括首席执行官Alex Zhavoronkov 1。这一做法暴露了知识产权法在AI时代的根本矛盾：尽管AI在药物发现中可能发挥基础性作用，现行法律仅赋予人类发明权 2。
美国法院在2022年的DABUS案中明确裁定，发明人的法律定义是"个人"即人类，机器不能被命名为发明人 1。专利律师Sarah Korman指出，"必须有人类发明人，否则就没有发明和专利" 1，并表示法律需要演进以跟上AI步伐 1。律师Ryan Abbott警告，AI生成的药物专利可能因发明人名单错误而面临法律挑战，导致专利无效 1。
美国专利商标局曾在Biden政府下发布指导意见，帮助申请人判断何时人类可被列为共同发明人，但Trump政府上台后改变了立场，现将AI视为计算器等工具 1。随着AI模型能力的不断提升，谁真正发明了某物的问题可能会变得更加复杂 2，专利法对"发明"含义的重新定义可能成为必要。
Insilico Medicine has developed a promising drug candidate for pulmonary fibrosis using an artificial intelligence platform, yet the company's patent application lists only five human inventors, including CEO Alex Zhavoronkov, rather than crediting the AI system.1 In a 2022 ruling known as the DABUS case, a U.S. court determined that the legal definition of an inventor is a "person"—meaning a human being—and that machines cannot be named as inventors.1 This decision underscores a fundamental tension in intellectual property law: even as AI plays an increasingly central role in scientific discovery, only humans can claim legal ownership of inventions.
The case has exposed growing friction between how companies describe their AI contributions publicly and how they handle patent claims. While Insilico Medicine announced that its AI platform had "discovered" the drug candidate, the patent filing excluded any mention of the AI system itself.1 Patent attorney Sarah Korman stated that "there must be a human inventor, otherwise there is no invention and no patent," adding that it is "without question" that the law will need to evolve to keep pace with AI.1 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously issued guidance under the Biden administration to help applicants determine when humans could be listed as co-inventors, but the Trump administration has since shifted its position, treating AI as a tool comparable to a calculator.1 Attorney Ryan Abbott warned that patents for AI-generated drugs could face legal challenges if the list of inventors is incorrect, potentially rendering patents invalid.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。