{"id":2492,"date":"2022-05-09T14:54:27","date_gmt":"2022-05-09T11:54:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/?p=2492"},"modified":"2025-01-09T15:58:51","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T12:58:51","slug":"3d-printing-artificially-intelligent-robots-and-software-inventions-is-technology-shaking-the-reign-of-ip-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/2022\/05\/09\/3d-printing-artificially-intelligent-robots-and-software-inventions-is-technology-shaking-the-reign-of-ip-law\/","title":{"rendered":"3D printing, artificially intelligent robots and software inventions, is technology shaking the reign of IP law?\ufffc\ufffc\u00a0\ufffc\ufffc"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Technological evolution in the 21st century made way for radical changes in our lives. The last century was popular for computer and communication developments, but nowadays it seems that artificial intelligence (AI) is able to improve every machine to generate products such as robotics, 3D printing machines and computer-implemented innovations. Although there is no commonly used definition for AI, it is mostly used for problem-solving tasks inspired by the human brain.[1]<\/a> It can be understood how AI innovation will increase by looking at the 90% rate of allowance in the PTO 7-year period from 2011.[2]<\/a> Even though EPO recommendations and many scholars expressed that the current regime is sufficient to deal with new disruptive technologies[3]<\/a> some argue that in the light of technological growth in the AI industry it is important to beware that existing inapplicable frameworks must be re-evaluated. [4]<\/a> From the point of software, although computer programs are excluded from the patentable subject matter, there is a legal uncertainty about how broad this term should be understood and whether to assess AI-based products with the current requirements. The increase of machines which can independently act or create things has posed numerous concern for the patent system such as how will the inventive step, prior art, inventorship and technical contribution evaluated. Patentability requirements especially inventive steps and non-obviousness had been set to prevent numerous worthless progress in the patent system.  The aim of the requirements was to eliminate inventions that will be invented even patent system does not exist. [5]<\/a> Conversely, the accepted technical contribution approach seems to increase the number of patents in the field. The aim of the patent regime is to share developments with the society to protect the sustainability of development, there while protecting the inventor\u2019s idea and incentive. To redress the balance between this two, it is essential to regulate wideness scope of protection.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, it is claimed that compared to high R&D costs, the profit planned to gain from patent rights might be less because of the rapidity of technology.[7]<\/a> For instance, 3D printing provides almost zero cost to copy products with downloadable file. Producing objects via 3D is infringe the patents except for private use, however, it is not clear whether sharing CAD files infringe the rights. It is essential for patent holders to prevent the dissemination of CAD files because of detecting and cost difficulties of individual infringements. Under current law, there are many questions and ambiguity in the practice area of 3D printing. After the foundation of the internet, Laws transformed to keep up with the technology, it is expected that with 3D machines the same will happen. Although it is necessary to ensure protection for patent holders if protection for the claimant will too strong then the market price and crooks would be too much. Also, 20-year protection will be easy and much more the patent holders deserved.[8]<\/a> Although it has been stressed that the patent systems needs reformation incentivizing innovation there is no evidence that reconfiguring systems will provide the ideal concept. It is argued that rather than tailoring the patent system eligibly to innovation, some deep principles of the system must be changed completely.[9]<\/a> Because rapid growth in technology showed that there have always been new technological innovations and it is not possible to adapt the law at every turn.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay, it is aimed to assess the difficulties IP system are expected to face against the last developments in AI,3D printing and robotics in terms of patents and to reach a conclusion on whether the current patent evaluation in these fields needs to change. This essay is divided into three main parts. In the first part, it will examine whether using 3D machines, or sharing digital files infringes patent protection and how the will system protect patent holders. The second part consists of how patentability requirements of inventions can implement to software-implemented inventions and challenges about assessing technical effect, the person skilled in the art and AI inventorship. The third part will analyse the consequences of potential infringements robotics may cause and strategies firms follow. Finally, it will be summarised how new technologies shape the current patent policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.  3D PRINTING<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

3D printing is defined as a form of creating objects from digital codes, and additive manufacturing. [11]<\/a> 3D printing is an alternative method for manufacturing wide scope of goods. With the disposability of 3d printers in homes, it seems that the economic system we are familiar with is most likely to change. [12]<\/a>  To manufacture anything with 3D machines, there is two ways, one of them is using software made CAD files or having a digital copy using 3D and scanning (reverse engineering) the object. It is clear that by using 3D printers it is possible to create novel products as well as recognized ones. In terms of patentability, only if a completely new substance is designed, infeasible to do by conventional techniques means it is novel and, on the condition, that other requirement of patentability are fulfilled, it can be patented.[13]<\/a>  Due to the limitations of this study, this part will mostly focus on direct and indirect infringement. However, the most concerning question is how patent holders will protect their rights on products which can also be made by 3D printings.  Detecting direct infringement on an individual base is complex, difficult and costly therefore It is argued that there is increasing intention for indirect infringement to protect patents.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 a) Repairment<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 60(1) of the UK patent act defines the actions of direct infringement, one of which is making the patented product.[15]<\/a> In the United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services case, it is stated that in the patent system there is no \u2018implied right to repair\u2019 however, it is unclear whether repairing a product means ‘making’ and infringement.[16]<\/a>Although Mendis argue that repaired product can be seen as a new edition and infringe the patent[17]<\/a>, Bechtold argues that the act of repair and make are differentiated in nature hence repairing doesn\u2019t infer infringement.[18]<\/a> Both in statuaries and cases, it is not clear that, if the products of 3D printer users need to be repaired and how will this action distinguish from an infringement.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

b) Responsibility of Intermediaries<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is argued that printing the object and shipping it to the customer is a direct infringement while customizing the CAD file is an indirect infringement regarding providing additional service by the online platform.[20]<\/a> Due to the high cost of complaining about direct infringers, it may be better to hold mediators liable. Every time printing objects by 3D machine, patent rights will be infringed. Nevertheless, by doing this, it is notable to consider intermediaries are playing the effective role in the market by facilitating distribution.[21]<\/a> To execute the infringement, it is required to know the object is patented. The ‘knowledge’ criteria don\u2019t seem convenient, due to the extreme workload of print officers and there is no list of goods because it depends on demand.[22]<\/a> Staple Article of Commerce Doctrine supports that if it can be also used for private reasons there would be no contribution to the infringement. [23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

c) Private Use Exception<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to the USA, most of the countries in Europe for example, UK Patent Act 60(5)(a}  excluded private use from the scope of patent infringements.[24]<\/a> Also, the Art.30 of TRIPS stated that rather than supplying or offering to supply if the person uses CAD files for private use then indirect infringement will not likely occur.[25]<\/a> It is argued that the main aim of this exception is the assumption that the patent holders won\u2019t be harmed by this.[26]<\/a> This all matters to how many people adapt to this technology. For example, if 10.000 customers starts to generate the object x by 3D machines when considering the audience scope of the particular market, it can be seen that the damage the patent holder would get will be deadly.[27]<\/a> Not restricting the usage, clearly conflicting with the aim of the patent system. One of the reasons infringements take place in 3D printing products except using for commercially is to sustain development in the field because manufacturing with the 3D printers is low cost and faster, so the conventional producers cannot balance R&D costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 d)  Are CAD Files Software or \u2018\u2019Means\u2019\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3D printing machine works with several files such as surface-mesh files, design files and machine-instruction files. The connection between 3D printer and machine-instruction files complies with the ‘further technical effect’ that software creates on hardware as a patentability requirement as stated in the IBM case, however, design and surface-mesh files have problems because of indirectness.[28]<\/a> However, a non-patented item can be ‘means’ of supplying and cause infringement if it is intended to put the patented object into force.[29]<\/a> Accepting CAD files as codes or intention to create objects, differentiate the mean of whether sharing CAD files violate patent rights.  It is argued by Mendis[30]<\/a> that supplying ‘means’ may be equal to procuring CAD files however, Bradshaw[31]<\/a> argue that it must be understood broader such as procuring design file, material and 3D printer. Mostly, in history, courts interpreted this term as tangible elements rather than abstract instructions. Sharing CAD files won\u2019t mean violating the patent rights according to the conventional approach which accepts CAD files as codes. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the cad files are software on their own, yet to create them it is necessary to use cad software. Some the experts argue that such files are artistic creations while some argue software. [32]<\/a>   In the case of patent infringement claim in Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd v. William Hill Organisation Ltd, although the host computer was abroad the program can run in the devices of customers in the UK, and the court held that supplying the program is an ‘essential element’ thus infringing the patent.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

e)  Essential Element of Invention<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it possible to announce the elements which are not in the claim of application as essential elements? It is not clear what makes an element ‘essential’ due to a smaller number of cases in this topic. Courts in the UK held that it should depend on whether the invention can be used without it, to understand whether the element is essential.[34]<\/a>It is not clear that only providing CAD files is sufficient for indirect infringement while users also need 3D printers and materials. But it must be highlighted that in terms of decreasing cost and facilitation CAD documents are indispensable. In order to be indirect infringement, it is not required to be brought the invention into force it is enough to satisfy the conditions in terms of ‘means’ of essential element.[35]<\/a> Making utilisable the CAD document via the internet does mean bringing the invention into force? It is argued by Miller that, in the situation, the customer can print the object based on supplied CAD document, indirect infringement will occur while if it is as easy as pushing a button then it will be direct infringement. [36]<\/a> Also, in Actavis Ltd v. Eli Lilly & Co. , UK Court has decided that it is not necessary to have the exact raw material to infringe the patent, any means that can be used for the same purpose is also sufficient.[37]<\/a> However, ‘suitability’ and ‘intention’ criteria are difficult and complex to follow. In case of technical drawings shared and the customer needs technical ability, UK courts have assessed that subjective criteria should be disregarded while assessing infringement. [38]<\/a>  Furthermore, to bring an infringement, a person should know it or it should be clear from the situation that the supplied CAD file has planned to use in a manner of infringement by the customer. [39]<\/a>  Even though CAD files are generally used in this sense, it also uses for many other purposes, thus knowledge requirement doesn\u2019t seem an appropriate benchmark . Despite it will assess case by a case basis, it is hard to read the intention. [40]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>2.   AI AND SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>a) Technical  Contribution<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although in the USA, in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case[41]<\/a> Supreme court decided that \u201canything under the sun that is made by man\u201d is the patentable subject matter threshold, in Europe, Article.52\/1 of EPC[42]<\/a> regulated patent requirements as newness, inventiveness and deployment in industry.  EPC 52\/2 stated that computer programs are not patentable while 52\/3 stated that inventions ‘as such’ are not patentable.[43]<\/a> It is not clear what is referred to by computer programs and ‘as such’. The ‘as such’ term has been interpreted as not all the computer programs but only abstract ideas which don\u2019t have a technical character are not patentable. [44]<\/a> It is agreed that ‘as such’ amounts to non-technical advancements otherwise if the application fulfils other patentability criteria, especially the technical one then it means the invention is patentable.[45]<\/a>  EPO has followed two main approaches. Firstly, the technical effect approach is a further technical contribution to the prior art. It is stated that usual electrical interactions are insignificant to distinguish between computer programs which have technical feature and ‘as such’ ones.[46]<\/a>  EPO has stated that it would not be exempt from patentability, if a computer program has been used for software invention, but requires a technical contribution to the prior art in an out of the exclusion field to qualify as patentable. For instance, VICOM[47]<\/a> increased display quality, in digital, by mathematical methods thus, patented. Enough technical features cannot be provided only by using computer, for instance, correction out of the exclusion field such as word processing even in computer programs decided as unpatentable.[48]<\/a> (IBM\/Text processing). However, in IBM\/Computer program product case[49]<\/a>, it is decided that programs on their own or in transporter are patentable. In sum, Board has changed its direction because ‘technical contribution’ approach causes complexity between what is requisite for the invention and the requirements of inventive step and novelty. [50]<\/a> Without considering prior art and pointing out the underlying cause, evaluating patentable subject matter has been criticised. [51]<\/a> Secondly, Technical Boards of Appeal changed the direction towards to any-hardware approach, supporting that the claim should be in or should involve the physical components which not necessary to be new to have a technical character. [52]<\/a> The Court of Appeal in the UK decided that if the subject of the claim had been excluded from the patentability, the application would be refused.[53]<\/a> Also, the Board decided that solutions in the excluded fields were not characterised as a technical features.[54]<\/a> Thus, although the solution is non-obvious, inventiveness in the different areas means there is a lack of inventive steps.[55]<\/a>  In contrast, in the Microsoft case, the court held that by helping the data transaction between programs, contribution to the computer system in terms of the internal transaction is technical, thus, subject methods are patentable.[56]<\/a> It is argued that liberalisation of the patent system may weaken the rule of subject matter eligibility and thus the quality of patents however, the Munich approach claimed that directing the focus from qualifications of subject matter to advanced level of technical contribution and inventiveness could enhance the level of computer-generated innovations and also decrease the immediate refuse of contribution to prior technic. [57]<\/a> It has been seen that the quality of patents has been endangered in the long term in the way how the patent system assesses the procedure. The disharmony of courts’ approach to cases, brought questions related to whether the principles of the patent system are enough to assess the developments in this area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>b) Inventorship<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The common view in Current Patent law acknowledges natural persons as an inventor to apply for their innovation.[58]<\/a>  If autonomous computers, make an invention without human intervention, who will be allocated as an inventor? [59]<\/a>   Computers also don\u2019t have a legal personality, so it is not possible to allocate them as an inventor. But also, it is not logical to give protection to a human who operates the AI for produced work because that means too much protection. [60]<\/a> The inventor is the person who designs the invention in his mind, but it is not required inventor to put it into practice. [61]<\/a> Although there are some software-generated product examples such as creativity machines which can operate without human intervention they are patented on behalf of humans who programmed them. However, it is argued by scholars that there is no sufficient ground for liberalizing the AI regime, the current system, limiting inventorship is enough for the mid-term future.[62]<\/a> Although even if the technology reaches the level of independent innovation of machines the identification of the AI regime as an inventor may not be possible.[63]<\/a> Even though currently machines are not able to perform wholly independent, soon it is expected that they will be able to innovate completely separate from instructions and commands and be able to apply for their patent requests.[64]<\/a> It is not clear how patent law will deal with when computers start to produce inventions autonomously. Complication between current laws\u2019[65]<\/a> intensity of allocating natural persons as a rightful owner and independent creativity ability of machines seems cannot be solved by traditional patent law principles. [66]<\/a> There must be some changes to inventor requirements to place the innovations in the system. AI systems consist contribution of many players who are connected to each other to support the performing systems. Inventorship can be claimed by those people who are software programmers who developed the program without a specific target, data suppliers who train the machine for learning ability, the owners of the AI system, the operators or people who have licenced to use the system, the investors who afford the investment costs.[67]<\/a> In patent application, it is required to show the usefulness, non-obviousness, inventiveness and novelty features of innovation.  As these requirements are fulfilled it can be argued that AI or anybody may receive a patent. [68]<\/a> However for now, when applying for a patent application involving an AI inventor it is most likely to be rejected by articles 19 and 81 of EPC.[69]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

c) AI as a PHOSITA<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Increasing AI systems will most challenge with inventive steps and non-obviousness requirements of patentability.[70]<\/a>  To be patentable in article 56 it is required that invention “is not obvious to the person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art. [71]<\/a> Patent examiners mostly consider former fillings to decide whether the matter of innovation is new while neglecting favourite doctrines and teachings. [72]<\/a> This process may occur conflicts in AI patents because of inadequate understanding and may show up as patenting existing technologies and preventing potential future development, unwitting infringements and decreasing the quality of patents due to lack of intensive research.[73]<\/a> Raising the patentability threshold may be one solution and excluding the inventions generated out of the patent regime in subcategory may be the other.[74]<\/a> However, this may cause arbitrariness in AI inventions. [75]<\/a> It is argued that the level of inventor ability has risen by the AI so the average the skilled person must be a rise in parallel.[76]<\/a> Due to rapid computing and autonomous intelligence non-obvious innovation or creation for ordinary people may be obvious or procurable for AI users.[77]<\/a> However, raising the bar of inventiveness will be a drawback for human inventors.[78]<\/a> While generating inventions with AI, because of the low threshold human PHOSITA won\u2019t be able to understand non-obviousness criteria and improvement will be slow. On the other hand, AI PHOSITA\u2019s obviousness rate will be much more. [79]<\/a> Nevertheless, due to the difference between cognition of humans and the AI systems, if human PHOSITA cannot comprehend the boundaries of AI operation, the patent claims will be invalid.[80]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>3.   ROBOTICS<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The robot is defined by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) as an activated system adjustable in axis, performing for a planned goal autonomously.[81]<\/a> Despite many types of robots, development in AI has increased the variety of intended fields of robots.[82]<\/a> Working on and developing robotics is a time consuming and costly process thus working firms need the motivation to maintain this process. Ip rights play an essential role for these firms to get investment, compensate R&D costs and prevent competitors’ infringement.[83]<\/a> Patent rights are significant for robotic companies in terms of capital they need to do R&D. Also, to prevent rivals and protect profits robotics companies frequently apply for patents. Nevertheless, in the past, it has been seen that just a few of many patent applications for robotics had been used in a commercial areas. The difficulty of rapid commercialisation, the robots cause meaningless protection and award due to the short time protection patents provide. Even so, there are some disputes among robotic companies. Over the past decade, most of the conflict in the robotics area has been exposed to iRobot.[84]<\/a> For instance, in the iRobot Corporation v Urus Industrial Corporation Case iRobot argued that Urus\u2019 vacuum cleaner violated their patent rights and wanted to be recompensed.[85]<\/a>  In the end, the parties reached an agreement outside of the court that the violator party won\u2019t sell the product in the country until the patent period ends. [86]<\/a> Especially design patents are important to protect due to leaving a unique mark in consumers’ memory.  It has been deliberated by the experts that, is the scope of patents is too broad despite it seems patent conflicts among robotic firms have been solved effectively. [87]<\/a> With the autonomous features of robots, the legal liability of their actions becomes a concern. The autonomy of robots is a technological feature and related to the complex interplay of their environmental connections. it has been questioned whether the current legal framework of legal responsibility needs to change related to the negligence or harm of robots. One of the questions was, is it needed to create a new legal category to assess the liability of robots?  Although it is stated in European Parliament recommendations that the current legal framework is sufficient to draw a line for the action of robots there are no valid rules particular for robotics. [88]<\/a> For the infringement actions in the existing legal regimes, it is possible to hold liable the users, programmers or owners rather than robots.[89]<\/a> However, it is not known to which degree they can foresee the results of the actions of robots. It is not fair to hold the owner, programmer or user liable for the infringement actions of robots which they are not able to estimate or plan. On the other hand, it is also essential to compensate for the damage robots cause, it is clear that the existing legal system cannot answer the questions thus it must be reconstructed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, in the light of disrupting advancements in AI technology, it is clear that there are boundaries that need to be reconsidered by the current patent regime which is not able to keep in step. In this article, it is evaluated that the rapid development in AI has effects on the field of 3D printing, software and interactive robotics in terms of patentability, inventorship and infringement. Firstly, 3D printing is about to change the current economic perception. It also opens door to individual patent infringements which are costly and almost impossible to follow. It seems that to protect patent holders the only way is to prevent the circulation of digital files. It has not put forward the legal definition of CAD files, and concerns remain whether to what extent dissemination of them and the act of intermediaries cause patent infringement directly or indirectly. In the long run with the dissemination of 3D printers, the difficulties patent holders face may increase as well. [90]<\/a> With regard to software-implemented inventions, different approaches of patentability assessment must be combined to be foreseen by inventors to prompt future innovations. Issues of allocating inventorship and person skilled in the art in the subject of AI-generate inventions must be re-evaluated. Also, the Robotic firms are making investments and paying R&D costs and, to foster innovation, it should be examined whether the robots need to be protected by patents and who must be liable for infringement actions of robots. It is possible that there are non-disclosed innovations, due to the vague approach of the patent system to AI-based innovations and the need of knowing the last invention in the field in order to achieve higher technology, therefore, there must be some changes in the fundamentals of patent law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Av. Muhammet Emir \u00c7elik<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>   CUBERT Jeremy., \u201cThe Law of Intellectual Property Created by Artificial Intelligence\u201c in Barfield  Woodrow and Pagallo Ugo, \u201cResearch Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence\u201c Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018 417. <https:\/\/www.elgaronline.com\/view\/edcoll\/9781786439048\/9781786439048.00028.xml> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a>  SUTTON Eric , \u201cArtificial Intelligence 2.0: Artificially Intelligent Guidance for Obtaining Artificial Intelligence Patents, as Presented to IPO (3-7-18) \u201c <http:\/\/www.patnotechnic.com\/2018\/04\/artificial-intelligence-20-artificially.html> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> MIMLER Marc , \u201c3D Printing and Patent Law \u2013 a UK Perspective: Apt and Ready?\u201c in Mendis Dinusha, Lemley Mark and Rimmer Matthew, \u201c3D Printing and Beyond\u201c Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019 21. <https:\/\/www.elgaronline.com\/view\/edcoll\/9781786434043\/9781786434043.00012.xml> accessed 16 May 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> DEPOORTER Ben, \u201cIntellectual Property Infringements & 3D Printing: Decentralized Piracy Symposium: The Legal Dimension of 3D Printing\u201c Hastings Law Journal, 65, 2013  1483,1489 <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/P?h=hein.journals\/hastlj65&i=1595> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> KITCH Edmund W., \u201cGraham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents\u201c Journal of the Patent Office Society, 49, 1967 237,246. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/P?h=hein.journals\/jpatos49&i=263> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>  RAMALHO Ana, \u201cPatentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed?\u201c Social Science Research Network, 2018 8. <https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/abstract=3168703> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> GOLDMAN Eric, \u201cFixing Software Patents\u201c Social Science Research Network, 2013 5-7. <https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/abstract=2199180> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>  BECKER Gary and POSNER Richard, \u201cDo Patent and Copyright Law Restrict Competition and Creativity Excessively?\u201c The Becker-Posner Blog, 2012 <https:\/\/www.becker-posner-blog.com\/2012\/09\/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> JAFFE Adam and LERNER Josh, \u201cInnovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It\u201c Princeton University Press, 2004 198. <https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctt7t655> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> BALLARDINI Rosa Maria, NORRG\u00c5RD Marcus and MINSSEN Timo, \u201cEnforcing Patents in the Era of 3D Printing\u201c Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10, 2015 850,850. <https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jiplp\/article-lookup\/doi\/10.1093\/jiplp\/jpv152> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> WHADCOCK Ian, \u201cA Third Industrial Revolution\u201c The Economist, 2012<https:\/\/www.economist.com\/special-report\/2012\/04\/21\/a-third-industrial-revolution> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> OVERWALLE Geertrui Van and LEYS Reinout, \u201c3D Printing and Patent Law: A Disruptive Technology Disrupting Patent Law?\u201c IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 48, (2017) 504,514 <http:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s40319-017-0602-1> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> BALLARDINI, NORRG\u00c5RD and MINSSEN (n 11) 856.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> UK Patent Act 1977  s 60(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services Ltd [2001] RPC 24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> MENDIS Dinusha, \u201c\u201cThe Clone Wars\u201d: Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and Its Implications for Intellectual Property Law – Learning Lessons from the Past?\u201c EIPR: European Intellectual Property Review, 35, 2013 155,160.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> BECHTOLD Stefan, \u201c3D Printing, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy\u201c IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47, 2016  517,528. <http:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s40319-016-0487-4> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> MENDIS (n 18) 161.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> VAN OVERWALLE and LEYS (n 13) 528.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> BECHTOLD (n 19) 530.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> OSBORN Lucas , \u201c3D Printing and Intellectual Property\u201c Cambridge University Press, 1st edn, 2019 89. <https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/9781316584507\/type\/book> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> VAN OVERWALLE and LEYS (n 13) 526.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> UK Patent Act 1977 s 60(5)(a); Jones v Pearce [1832] 1 WPC 122.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 1994, Art.30<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> SHERMAN Brad, \u201cExclusions from Patentability and Exceptions and Limitations to Patentees’ Rights\u201c WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, 2010 SCP\/15\/3 Annex 2 7. <https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/edocs\/mdocs\/patent_policy\/en\/scp_20\/scp_20_3.pdf>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> OSBORN (n 20) 86.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> T 1173\/97 (Computer program product\/IBM) of 1.7.1998. 5.3 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a>UK Patent Act 1977 s 60(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> MENDIS (n 17) 160.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> BRADSHAW Simon, BOWYER Adrian and HAUFE Patrick, \u201cThe Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing\u201c A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 7, 2010 5,14. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/P?h=hein.journals\/scripted7&i=5> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> RIDEOUT Brian, \u201cPrinting the Impossible Triangle: The Copyright Implications of Three-Dimensional Printing\u201c Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, 5, 2011 161,165 <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/P?h=hein.journals\/jbelw5&i=163> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd and Another v William Hill Organisation Ltd<\/em> [2002] EWCA Civ 1702, [2003] 1 WLR 1462<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> BALLARDINI, NORRG\u00c5RD and MINSSEN (n 13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> ibid 860.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> MIMLER Marc, \u201c3D Printing, the Internet and Patent Law \u2013 A History Repeating?\u201c Social Science Research Network, 2013 352,358. <https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/abstract=2482551> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company<\/em> [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] 1 All ER 171<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a>  Rabobank New Zealand v McAnulty [2011] 3 NZLR 192 (CA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> BALLARDINI, NORRG\u00c5RD and MINSSEN (n 11) 864.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> ibid 865.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> Diamond v. Chakrabarty – 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> European Patent Convention (EPO) Art. 52\/2 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> T 1173\/97 (Computer program product\/IBM) of 1.7.1998. 5.2 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> CRISTINA Ionita, \u201cSoftware Patentability in Europe: The Rise of the Inventive Step Requirement\u201c UPPSALA UNIVERSITET, 2017 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a> T 1173\/97 (Computer program product\/IBM) of 1.7.1998<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a> T-208\/84 VICOM\/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> T-65\/86 IBM\/Text processing [1990] EPOR 181 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> T-935\/97 IBM\/Computer program product II [1999].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a> IONITA (n 43) 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a> T-931\/95 PBS PARTNERSHIP\/Controlling pension benefits system [2000] OJ EPO 441<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a> IONITA (n 43 11).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a> Hitachi\/ Merrill Lynch’s Application [1989] RPC 561; Gales’ Application [1991] RPC 305<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> T-931\/95 PBS PARTNERSHIP\/Controlling pension benefits system [2000] OJ EPO 441<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/a> T-0258\/03 HITACHI\/Auction Method [2004]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/a> T 0424\/03 (Clipboard formats I\/MICROSOFT) 23.2.2006 5.3<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/a> G 03\/08 (Programs for computers) EPO 12.5.2010; Brad n(28).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/a> SOANS Cyril , \u201cSome Absurd Presumptions in Patent Cases\u201c Patent, Trademark and Copyright Journal of Research and Education, 10, 1966 433,438. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/idea10&id=435&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/a>  ABBOTT Ryan,  \u201cI Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law\u201c Boston College Law Review, 57, 2016 1079,1121. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/bclr57&id=1080&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/a> ibid 1085.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a> Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/a> VAN OVERWALLE and LEYS (n 13) 529.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/a> SHEMTOV Noam, \u201cA Study on Inventorship in Inventions Involving AI Activity\u201c Queen Mary University of London, 2019 34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/a> ABBOTT (n 51) 1081.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/a> 1977 Patents  Act s(7)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/a> RUSSEL Stuart and NORVIG Peter, \u201cArtificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach\u201c Pearson Education Limited, 2013 938.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/a> RAVID Shlomit Yanisky and LIU Xiaoqiong, \u201cWhen Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: An Alternative Model for Patent Law at the 3A Era\u201c Cardozo Law Review, 39, 2018 2215,2233.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/a>  KARKHANIS Aashish  and PARENTI Jenna, \u201cToward an Automated First Impression on Patent Claim Validity: Algorithmically Associating Claim Language with Specific Rules of Law\u201c Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 2015 196,201. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/stantlr19&id=212&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[69]<\/a> European Patent Convention (EPC) Art.19,81<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[70]<\/a> GRANSTRAND Ove, \u201cPatents and Policies for Innovations and Entrepreneurship\u201cin Takenaka Toshiko, \u201cResearch Handbook on Patent Law and Theory\u201c Edward Elgar Publishing,  2019 86 <https:\/\/www.elgaronline.com\/view\/edcoll\/9781785364112\/9781785364112.00011.xml> accessed 26 April 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[71]<\/a> UK Patent Act 1977, s 56(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[72]<\/a> CORREA Carlos, \u201cInternationalization of the Patent System and New Technologies\u201c Wisconsin International Law Journal, 20, 2001 523,541. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/wisint20&id=533&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[73]<\/a> COHEN Wesley M and others (eds), \u201cPatents in the Knowledge-Based Economy\u201c National Academies Press, 2003 56.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[74]<\/a> RAMALHO (n 6) 26.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[75]<\/a> LIM Daryl, \u201cAI & IP: Innovation & Creativity in an Age of Accelerated Change\u201c Akron Law Review, 52, 2018 813,864. <https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/aklr52&id=837&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[76]<\/a> VERTINSKY Liza and RICE Todd, \u201cThinking about Thinking Machines: Implications of Machine Inventors for Patent Law\u201c Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 8, 2002  574,602.<https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/Page?handle=hein.journals\/jstl8&id=582&div=&collection=>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[77]<\/a> RAMALHO (n 6) 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[78]<\/a> FIRTH-BUTTERFIELD Kay and CHAE Yoon, \u201cArtificial Intelligence Collides with Patent Law\u201c World Economic Forum, 2018 13. <https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/whitepapers\/artificial-intelligence-collides-with-patent-law>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[79]<\/a> LIM (n 6) 52.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[80]<\/a> Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. – 572 U.S. 898, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[81]<\/a> \u201cIntroduction into Service Robots\u201c International Federation of Robotics, 2016 1. <https:\/\/ifr.org\/img\/office\/Service_Robots_2016_Chapter_1_2.pdf>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[82]<\/a> \u201cArtificial Intelligence in Robotics\u201c IFR 2018 1. <https:\/\/ifr.org\/downloads\/papers\/Media_Backgrounder_on_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Robotics_May_2018.pdf>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[83]<\/a> KEISNER Andrew, RAFFO Julio and WUNSCH-VINCENT Sacha, \u201cBreakthrough Technologies\u2013Robotics, Innovation and Intellectual Property\u201c, WIPO Magazine, 30, 2015 10. <<www.wipo.int\/wipo_magazine\/en\/ 2016\/06\/article_0002.html >>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[84]<\/a> ibid 16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[85]<\/a> iRobot Corporation v Urus Industrial Corporation Case 1:05-cv-10914-RGS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[86]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[87]<\/a> TOBE F., \u201cThe Patent Grip Loosens\u201cEverything-Robotics, 6,  2012 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[88]<\/a> \u201cEuropean Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015\/2103(INL)) AI 18.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[89]<\/a> ibid AD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[90]<\/a> MIMLER (n 4) 134.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction Technological evolution in the 21st century made way for radical changes in our lives. The last century was popular for computer and communication developments, but nowadays it seems that artificial intelligence (AI) is able to improve every…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[74,75,78,77,76],"class_list":["post-2492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genel","tag-3d-printing","tag-ai","tag-inventorship","tag-robotics","tag-software-implemented-inventions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2492"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2674,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2492\/revisions\/2674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcelikpartners.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}