“By permitting [AI] techniques to be acknowledged as patent inventors, we’re incentivizing innovation and analysis on this discipline, concurrently we assure a authorized system that’s efficient in safety of mental property rights.” – Deputado Federal Júnior Mano
On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (generally known as Júnior Mano), launched a invoice to amend the nationwide IP Statute (Regulation #9,279/96) and regulate the possession of innovations generated by synthetic intelligence techniques. Invoice #303/2024 proposes the addition of a paragraph to Article 6 of the IP Statute, which regulates possession of innovations, with the next wording: “within the case of innovations autonomously generated by synthetic intelligence system, the patent might be requested within the title of the substitute intelligence system that has created the invention, being the substitute intelligence system thought of the inventor and proprietor of rights arising from the invention.”
In his written justification for the invoice, Júnior Mano mentions the DABUS case, citing an article that compiles the choices rendered in numerous jurisdictions for a patent software filed by Stephen Thaler for an invention created by his AI machine, DABUS. Júnior Mano observes that “though in some international locations the functions have been initially rejected based mostly on the argument that the inventor must be a human individual, somewhere else the controversy continues, with arguments being introduced in favor and in opposition to the potential for AI being listed as an inventor.”
In opposition to this background, Júnior Mano says the invoice goals to replace the Brazilian laws to the fact of technological improvements, eliminating uncertainties that would hurt growth on this discipline. He states that “by permitting these techniques to be acknowledged as patent inventors, we’re incentivizing innovation and analysis on this discipline, concurrently we assure a authorized system that’s efficient in safety of mental property rights.” (Quotes have been translated by the authors).
The Current Regime
Presently, within the absence of a statutory provision regulating AI-generated innovations, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Workplace (BPTO) rejects the potential for indicating an AI system as inventor in a patent software filed in Brazil. In 2022, the BPTO federal attorneys issued a authorized opinion (Opinion #24/2022) observing, as a premise, that the foundations regulating the acquisition of mental property rights “have traditionally ignored the potential for non-human figures, or machines, being the authors of creative works or innovations.” Article 6 of the Brazilian IP Statute consists of language which, in accordance with the federal attorneys, solely permits for human beings to be named as inventors. They concluded that “at this second, eventual utility patents developed or generated by synthetic intelligence problem the present system to guard industrial property rights.” As an afterthought, the federal attorneys affirmed that “particular laws must be enacted regulating innovations developed by synthetic intelligence machines, which is able to most likely be preceded by worldwide treaties geared toward harmonizing the rules of safety on the nationwide ranges.”
Closing the Hole
Invoice #303/2024, if permitted, would shut this hole within the Brazilian laws, though the wording proposed nonetheless leaves rooms for questions. The IP Statute may also require an modification to make clear, as an example, who could be entitled to file an software for an AI-generated invention. The paragraph proposed within the invoice says nothing about this. Its last half (“being the substitute intelligence system thought of the inventor and proprietor of rights arising from the invention”) appears to point that the appliance may very well be filed within the title of the AI system. That is consistent with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the present statute, which establishes that “the patent might be filed within the inventor’s title, by their heirs or successors, by the assignee, or by the individual or entity to whom the regulation or the employment or service supplier contract determines the possession belongs.”
Nonetheless, battle might come up whereby the entity that invented the AI system is completely different from the entity (firm or individual) that used the AI system to generate the invention and is taking the measures to use for a patent software. Amending the IP Statute to control these and different features associated to AI-generated innovations would assist to decrease the uncertainties even additional.
Course of
There will probably be loads of alternatives for this to be finished. Invoice #303/2024 will quickly be assigned to one of many Home of Representatives Committees. The President of the Home defines which committee(s) will focus on the invoice based mostly on its thematic relevance. Since Invoice #303/2024 proposes an modification to the IP Statute, it can seemingly be despatched to the Trade, Commerce, and Companies Committee. There, a Home Consultant will probably be designated as its rapporteur. The invoice will most likely additionally need to be despatched to the Science, Expertise, and Innovation Committee, the place a rapporteur shall even be assigned.
A rapporteur is accountable for consulting consultants and the general public to write down a report, which is able to then function foundation for debate and voting by the opposite members of the committee(s). If the invoice passes this stage, it is going to be despatched to the Structure and Justice Committee, the place it’s assessed whether or not the invoice violates any provision of the Structure. Afterward, if permitted, the invoice will probably be despatched on to the Senate. If any of the Home Committees vote to reject the invoice, it is going to be returned to the President, who will put the invoice as much as a vote in a plenary session.
AI within the Highlight
There are at the moment greater than 80 payments which tackle AI-related features being processed within the Brazilian Congress. A number of of them purpose to criminalize utilizing AI for fraudulent and/or violent functions. Others search to control using AI. With respect to mental property rights, Invoice #1473/2023, at the moment ready for a report from its rapporteur within the Fee of Tradition, makes it obligatory for firms working synthetic intelligence techniques to make accessible instruments that enable content material creators to limit using their supplies by AI, thus preserving their copyrights.
One other invoice launched in 2023, this one by the President of the Senate, goals to supply common guidelines “for the event, implementation, and accountable use of synthetic intelligence techniques in Brazil” (Invoice #2338/2023). Article 42 of the invoice states that “it doesn’t represent a violation of copyrights the automated utilization of works, such because the extraction, copy, storage and transformation, in information and textual content mining processes in synthetic intelligence techniques,” when finished by analysis establishments, information organizations, museums, libraries, and archives.
