Patent eligibility and generative AI

Patent eligibility and generative AI

The Federal Circuit court of appeals today issued an interesting decision under the law of patent eligibility. The case, AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., has potential implications for generative artificial intelligence technologies.

AI Visualize holds several patents relating to visualization of medical scans at a remote computer, such as over the Internet. Remote viewing of complex medical scans can be challenging because of bandwidth limitations and the large amount of data generated in a medical scan. The patented solution involved transmission of a portion of the data and generation of a “virtual view” on the remote end.

Nuance Communications brought an Alice motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court applied the familiar two-step Alice framework, concluding in step 1 that the claims were simply directed towards the manipulation and display of data, which was an abstract idea, and that the patentee had not shown anything further under Alice step two.

The patentee argued that the requirement for creation of “virtual views” meant that the invention was not an abstract idea. But the Federal Circuit disagreed, because the claim specified that the creation of the virtual views was achieved by manipulation of the underlying pre-existing data. In the court’s words:

AI Visualize argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims require the creation of “on the fly” virtual views at a client computer. . . . But the claim language makes clear that virtual view “creation” is achieved by the manipulation of a portion of the existing VVD [the data set]. For example, Claim 1 of the ’609 patent requires “accepting at a remote location at least one user request for a series of virtual views of the volume visualization dataset” and “creating the requested frames of the requested views from the volume visualization dataset.” . . . [T]his “creation” of a virtual view from the existing VVD, recited in general terms, is abstract data manipulation. (Cleaned up.)

So, another set of patents falls to Alice.

Could one describe the AI Visualize patents as being in the field of “generative” artificial intelligence? The patented technology apparently did indeed generate virtual views, albeit perhaps by a simple algorithmic manipulation of preexisting data.

But how does this technology differ in kind from the latest generative artificial intelligence technology (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot. etc.)? These latest systems also begin with an underlying, and very large, data set. Using some algorithm and a user query, these systems can generate realistic text responses, photographs, document summaries, and so on. ?At their core, though, these systems are likewise using algorithms to manipulate preexisting data to generate a response. ?The algorithms used by ChatGPT and the underlying data sources are undoubtedly vastly more complex than those of the AI Visualize patents, but to be sure, these technologies still involve algorithms manipulating data.

Put another way, generative artificial intelligence can produce some profoundly amazing results, but ultimately, this technology is at its core the manipulation of data to generate an interesting or useful output. The AI Visualize patents fell because “the claim language makes clear that virtual view ‘creation’ is achieved by the manipulation of a portion of the existing [data set].” What does this imply for patents directed to generative artificial intelligence?

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Allen E. Hoover的更多文章

  • IDS practice shouldn’t be an Olympic sport

    IDS practice shouldn’t be an Olympic sport

    I am reminiscing for the Olympics. Who doesn’t love the Olympics? As a lifelong desk jockey, I’m always astounded by…

    1 条评论
  • More Ways for the New Acting Director to Fix the USPTO Fast

    More Ways for the New Acting Director to Fix the USPTO Fast

    I wrote a short guest post this morning on IP Watchdog and invite my followers to read it. Click here to read.

    1 条评论
  • Time to clean up!

    Time to clean up!

    Has it been a while since you cleaned your office or home office? It's amazing how much more productive one can be when…

    3 条评论
  • “Brooding omnipresence in the sky of patent law”

    “Brooding omnipresence in the sky of patent law”

    The Tenth Circuit court of appeals issued an interesting decision this week on the issue of patent exhaustion—and gave…

  • Falsely claiming patented status can be actionable

    Falsely claiming patented status can be actionable

    In an interesting case today, Crocs, Inc. v.

    3 条评论
  • Trap for the unwary: Merger rule sinks patent

    Trap for the unwary: Merger rule sinks patent

    Patent law is rife with traps for the unwary. One such trap was illustrated today in Koss Corp.

    1 条评论
  • Cautionary tale re appellate procedure

    Cautionary tale re appellate procedure

    There’s a new Federal Circuit case today that I find interesting, not only for its main holding, but also for one of…

    1 条评论
  • No direct liability for attorneys under Section 285

    No direct liability for attorneys under Section 285

    In a decision that I find welcome, the Federal Circuit today issued a case determining that (1) Section 285 of the…

    1 条评论
  • Watch that word count

    Watch that word count

    An interesting order from the Western District of Washington, in Larsen v. PPT, LLC, illustrates an uncommon pitfall in…

    1 条评论
  • No PTA for you!

    No PTA for you!

    An interesting case today from the Federal Circuit: In re Cellect, LLC. The case concerns patent term adjustment and…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了