Cracking the Code: How to Patent Your Algorithm and Protect Your AI Creations

Can you patent an algorithm? In the rapidly evolving world of technology, software patents, namely algorithms, are the backbone of innovation.

But what does it take to patent an algorithm? This article explores the criteria for patent eligibility and the nuances of abstract ideas and their patentability.

We'll also examine the significant role of AI in algorithm development and whether AI-created algorithms can be patented, supported by relevant case studies.

Finally, discover how to protect your algorithm with a patent attorney at Patent Express by Trademarkia.

What makes an algorithm eligible for a patent?

To be eligible for a patent, an algorithm must meet specific criteria demonstrating:

1. Novelty,
2. Non-obviousness,
3. And utility.

Let’s explore each of these in more depth:

1. Novelty

The algorithm must be new and not previously disclosed in any prior art, which includes:

• Earlier patents,
• Publications,
• Or publicly available information.

It must present a unique solution or process that hasn't been documented before.

2. Non-obviousness

The algorithm shouldn't be an obvious development to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant field. This means it should involve an inventive step that isn’t readily deducible from existing knowledge or practices.

3. Utility

The algorithm must have a specific, substantial, and credible utility. It should provide a practical application that offers a tangible benefit, solving a particular problem or improving a process in a meaningful way.

4. Specific application

Abstract ideas, including mathematical formulas and general concepts, aren’t patentable. 

An algorithm must be tied to a specific application or embodiment. It must demonstrate how it is implemented in a particular technology or process to achieve a practical result.

5. Detailed description

The patent application must include a detailed description of the algorithm, explaining how it works and can be implemented. 

This includes providing sufficient technical details, such as flowcharts, pseudocode, or diagrams, to enable someone skilled in the art to reproduce and use the algorithm.

6. Claims

The patent application should include well-defined claims that specify the boundaries of the invention. These claims should clearly outline what aspects of the algorithm are being protected, distinguishing it from prior art and other known technologies.

7. Compliance with legal standards

The algorithm must comply with the legal standards and requirements set by the patent office in the relevant jurisdiction. 

This includes following guidelines for software-related inventions, as different countries have varying rules regarding the patentability of algorithms and software.

By meeting these criteria, an algorithm can be considered for patent protection, providing its creator with exclusive rights to its use and implementation, thereby safeguarding its innovation and competitive advantage.
Get your all-in-one solution, protect your patent worldwide with Patent Express by Trademarkia. 

Can you patent abstract ideas?

Abstract ideas, by their nature, aren't eligible for patents.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other patent authorities worldwide follow this principle to ensure that basic concepts and fundamental principles remain free for public use.

However, the line between an abstract idea and a patentable invention can sometimes be nuanced.

Here's a closer look at why abstract ideas aren't patentable and the conditions under which a related invention might be:

Why abstract ideas aren't patentable

Abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, mathematical algorithms, mental processes, and other general principles considered the basic tools of scientific and technological work.

Granting patents on these would hinder innovation rather than promote it.

Patents are intended to protect specific applications of ideas that have practical utility. Abstract ideas, by themselves, don't provide any specific, tangible results or solutions.

They need to be applied in a particular context to be useful.

Conditions for patentability

There are several conditions for patentability; these include:

1. Practical application: If an abstract idea is applied in a specific, novel, and non-obvious manner to achieve a practical result, it may become eligible for a patent. For instance, a new data encryption method that relies on an abstract mathematical principle but is implemented in a way that provides a new, useful, and non-obvious process might be patentable.
2. Technical implementation: The idea must be tied to a particular technological implementation. This means that simply stating an abstract concept isn't enough; it must be demonstrated how the concept is used in a specific technological environment to solve a problem or improve a process.
3. Concrete details: The patent application must include detailed descriptions and claims that outline how the abstract idea is specifically applied. This includes providing technical details, such as algorithms, flowcharts, and diagrams, to show the idea's practical implementation.

The role of AI in algorithm development

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized algorithm development, introducing unprecedented capabilities and efficiencies across various industries.

AI's involvement in creating, refining, and optimizing algorithms has transformed traditional approaches, making them more powerful and adaptable.

Automation and efficiency

1. Automated code generation: AI can automatically generate code, reducing the time and effort required for developing complex algorithms.

2. Rapid prototyping: AI accelerates the prototyping phase by quickly iterating through different algorithmic approaches. This allows developers to test multiple solutions and refine their algorithms more efficiently than manual methods.

Optimization and performance improvement

AI enables the development of adaptive algorithms that can learn and evolve over time. These algorithms adjust their parameters based on real-time data, improving their accuracy and efficiency in dynamic environments.

Innovation and discovery

1. Uncovering Patterns: AI excels at identifying patterns and correlations in vast datasets that might be missed by human analysts. This capability leads to the discovery of novel algorithms tailored to specific problems, pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

2. Generating New Algorithms: AI-driven systems, such as genetic algorithms and neural architecture search (NAS), can generate entirely new algorithms by simulating natural selection. These systems explore a vast search space of potential solutions, evolving better algorithms over successive generations.

Enhancing existing algorithms

1. Algorithm augmentation: AI can augment traditional algorithms by incorporating machine learning algorithms. For example, combining AI with classical optimization techniques can result in hybrid algorithms with improved performance and robustness.

2. Error reduction: AI helps identify and mitigate errors in existing algorithms. A machine learning algorithm can predict potential failure points and suggest modifications, enhancing their reliability.

Learn how we at Trademarkia are using AI for legal automation— see Trademarkia AI. 

Can AI algorithms be patented? Exploring relevant cases.

AI algorithms can generally be patented if they meet the standard criteria for patentability: novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. However, there are specific challenges unique to AI, for example:

Algorithms themselves, often viewed as abstract mathematical concepts, aren't patentable unless they are applied in a practical, technical context that provides a concrete benefit or solves a specific problem​.

In addition, one of the most contentious issues is whether an AI system can be listed as an inventor. Current U.S. law and similar frameworks in many jurisdictions mandate that only natural persons (human beings) can be recognized as inventors on a patent protection application​.

Let's explore some cases relating to this:

Key cases and decisions relating to AI

Thaler v. Vidal — DABUS

Stephen Thaler, an AI researcher, sought to obtain patents for two inventions he claimed were autonomously generated by his AI system, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).

In these applications, Thaler listed DABUS as the sole inventor. This led to significant legal challenges, primarily centered on whether an AI system could be recognized as an inventor under current patent laws​.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected Thaler's patent applications, stating that only natural persons could be listed as inventors.

The USPTO's decision was based on the statutory interpretation of the term "inventor" as defined in the Patent Act, which explicitly refers to an individual, thereby implying a human being.

Thaler appealed the USPTO's decision, but both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO's stance.

The courts ruled that the Patent Act's language clearly requires inventors to be natural persons. 

The appeals court emphasized that legislative intent and historical context support the interpretation that inventors must be human​.

Thaler's efforts to have DABUS recognized as an inventor were similarly rejected in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia.

Each of these regions upheld the requirement that inventorship must be attributed to natural persons.

The consistent international stance highlights a global consensus on patent law, reinforcing the notion that AI systems cannot be credited as inventors under existing legal frameworks​.

South Africa and DABUS — an exception, not a rule. 

In a notable exception, South Africa's Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission (CIPC) granted a patent listing DABUS as the inventor.

This decision significantly departed from the prevailing international consensus and stirred considerable interest in the intellectual property community​.

South Africa's patent system operates differently from that of many other countries.

It uses a registration-based system, which does not involve a substantive examination of the patent's merits before granting.

Instead, the patent is granted as long as the formal requirements and fees are met.

This procedural difference means that the patent's issuance doesn't necessarily reflect an endorsement of AI inventorship but rather procedural compliance with filing requirements.

The South African decision doesn't change the broader legal landscape but highlights potential variations in patent practices across jurisdictions.

It underscores the ongoing debate about AI's role in innovation and the need for potentially updating legal frameworks to address these emerging challenges.

The differing approaches also emphasize the importance of a harmonized international patent system that can adapt to technological advancements while maintaining legal clarity and fairness​.

Protect your algorithm with Patent Express by Trademarkia.

In the fast-paced world of technology, safeguarding your innovative algorithms is crucial to maintaining a competitive edge.

Patent Express by Trademarkia offers a streamlined, efficient process for securing your intellectual property. It ensures that your creations are legally protected and less vulnerable to infringement.

By choosing Patent Express, you benefit from Trademarkia's expertise, timely application submissions, and a robust support system tailored to your needs.

Don't leave your valuable algorithms exposed— trust a patent lawyer from Patent Express by Trademarkia to provide the protection they deserve. This will give you the peace of mind to continue innovating without the risk of losing your intellectual property.