Hong Nhung Pham

Artificial Intelligence Generated Works and Patent Law

Introduction

Artificial intelligence generated works and patent law. Explore legal implications of AI-generated works in patent law. Analyze DABUS case decisions from EU & South Korea to provide solutions for Vietnam on AI inventorship & patentability.

Abstract

The development of generative Artificial Intelligence has created several legal implications in intellectual property law. The most prominent example is DABUS case, in which DABUS – the AI invented by Stephen Thaler created a food container and a light by itself. Afterwards, Thaler tried to name the AI as the inventor of the product and claim the patent by being an employer of the AI. The case was trialled in 16 countries, including the European Union (EU) and South Korea, creating a major debate on the matters of inventorship and patentability. In Vietnam, since the invention of ViGPT, there has also been debates on similar issues. The aim of this paper is to provide Vietnam with solutions to this issue, thus the country can prepare for the phenomenon. This research will analyse and evaluate the DABUS decisions from the EU and South Korea, with comparison to Vietnamese law to answer questions on the inventor of AI-generated works and its patentability. The finding revealed that despite the differences in the law, the interpretation concluded similarly. However, as the direction of legislation in the European Union and South Korea were divergent, it can be beneficial for Vietnam to learn from the experience of both.

Review

This paper tackles a highly pertinent and critical issue emerging from the rapid advancement of generative Artificial Intelligence: the legal implications for patent law, specifically concerning inventorship and patentability of AI-generated works. The abstract effectively sets the stage by highlighting the globally debated DABUS case, where an AI was proposed as an inventor, challenging foundational principles of intellectual property. This case, having been adjudicated across numerous jurisdictions including the EU and South Korea, underscores the pressing need for legal systems, including Vietnam's, to adapt to the capabilities of autonomous AI creation. The paper's aim to provide Vietnam with proactive solutions to prepare for this phenomenon is particularly timely and relevant given local discussions around technologies like ViGPT. The research proposes a comparative legal analysis as its primary methodology, examining and evaluating the DABUS decisions from both the European Union and South Korea, and then comparing these with existing Vietnamese law. This approach is well-suited to address the core questions of who constitutes an inventor for AI-generated works and their patentability. The abstract reveals a crucial finding: despite differences in specific legislation, the judicial interpretations in the EU and South Korea converged on similar conclusions. However, it also highlights that the legislative *directions* in these regions are now diverging, providing a rich, albeit complex, landscape from which Vietnam can draw lessons. The paper's ambition to distil these international experiences into actionable solutions for Vietnam is commendable and forms a significant potential contribution. While the abstract clearly outlines the comparative focus, a deeper articulation of the specific nature of these "solutions" (e.g., proposed legislative amendments, interpretive frameworks, or policy recommendations) would further enhance its perceived utility. Moreover, exploring the underlying policy rationales driving the divergent legislative paths in the EU and South Korea could provide a more robust foundation for Vietnam's strategic choices. Nevertheless, this study promises to be a valuable resource for legal scholars and policymakers grappling with one of the most significant challenges at the frontier of technology and law.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.