JAPAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATIONASAHI SEIMEI OTEMACHI BLDG.18F
6-1 Otemachi 2-chome
Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, 100-0004, JAPANTEL: 81 3 5205 3321
FAX: 81 3 5205 3391
URL: http://www.jipa.or.jp/June 30th, 2020
To: WIPO Secretariat for CONVERSATION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY(IP) AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) Second Session
Email :ai2ip@wipo.int
Written Statement for INTERVENTIONS
prepared by Japan Intellectual Property Association
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am privileged to have this opportunity to offer ourview on the issue of AI and Intellectual Property. I am speaking on behalf of
the Japan Intellectual Property Association, JIPA. JIPA members include 1,300
companies and organizations from 12 countries, representing the world’s
largest users of IP systems which, for example, file 20% of worldwide PCT
patent applications.
We understand that the core issue in this discussion is AI inventorship, andmore specifically, as to the invention autonomously generated by AI, which therevised paper calls as AI generated invention, should AI be eligible as inventor,and should we protect such invention legally? JIPA considers premature theintroduction of measures to recognize AI-autonomous inventors and legislation
for the protection of their inventions. Further, this fundamental view of JIPA
applies not only to the Patent Act, but also the Copyright Act, and the DesignAct.
Discussing AI and IP issue is NOT purely a discussion within the area of IPlaws. JIPA believes that before introducing such legislation, it is important toreview this issue from the comprehensive approach including the following
aspects.
First is the technical aspect. JIPA commends WIPO’s effort on adding thesection for the definitions in the revised paper. We further recommend WIPO
to establish a frame of reference which facilitates the discussions by theworldwide IP community based on the common understanding of the AI
technology. For example, critical definitions in the paper would be AI, which isdefined as narrow AI, and also AI generated invention, which is defined asinvention generated without the intervention of human. Narrow AI may tend to
be interpreted as AI trained using a huge amount of training data and thereby
capable of doing some single task, and inventing autonomously seems to besomething much more intelligent. We may also want to better understand1

what “without the intervention of human” means and how a narrow AI can in fact
invent without intervention.
The second is the impact on the broader issues, such as the social economy,
the entire legal system, and the ethics. It is true that some of these issues may
be outside of WIPO’s mandate, but even if so, it is still worth discussing such
issues, under the leadership of WIPO, among the worldwide IP community andtogether with other stakeholders as necessary, so that we identify and highlight
critical issues, offer our findings based on our IP expertise to support thediscussions by other organizations or communities, and reach a proper
conclusion.
In conclusion, JIPA considers that we should organize and analyze the above
points, evaluate any impact on the broader issues, and make wide-ranging
discussions among experts in various fields, before determining necessary
measures.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Yours faithfully,--------------------------------Yuji TODA
President
Japan Intellectual Property Association2