E

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2019

WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial
Intelligence (AI)Second Session

DRAFT ISSUES PAPER ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY AND ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE
prepared by the WIPO Secretariat

INTRODUCTION
1.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a general-purpose technology with widespread
applications throughout the economy and society. It is already having, and is likely to haveincreasingly in the future, a significant impact on the creation, production and distribution of
economic and cultural goods and services. As such, AI intersects with intellectual property (IP)policy at a number of different points, since one of the main aims of IP policy is to stimulateinnovation and creativity in the economic and cultural systems.
2.
As policy makers start to decipher the wide-ranging impacts of AI, the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) has started to engage on the aspects of AI that are specific to IP.
There are several threads to this engagement, notably:(a) AI in IP Administration. AI applications are being increasingly deployed in theadministration of applications for IP protection. WIPO Translate and WIPO Brand Image
Search, which use AI-based applications for automated translation and image recognition,
are two examples of such AI applications. Several IP Offices around the world havedeveloped and deployed other AI applications. In May 2018, WIPO convened a meeting todiscuss these AI applications and to foster the exchange of information and the sharing of

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 2such applications.1 The Organization will continue to use its convening power and position
as the international organization responsible for IP policy to continue this dialogue andexchange.
(b) IP and AI Strategy Clearing House. AI has become a strategic capability for many
governments across the globe. Strategies for the development of AI capacity and AI
regulatory measures have been adopted with increasing frequency. The Organization has
been encouraged by its Member States to collate the main government instruments ofrelevance to AI and IP with the aid of the Member States. To this end, a dedicated website
will be published shortly that seeks to link to these various resources in a manner thatfacilitates information sharing.
(c) IP Policy. The third thread is an open and inclusive process aimed at developing alist of the main questions and issues that are arising for IP policy as a consequence of theadvent of AI as an increasingly widely used general-purpose technology. For this purpose,a Conversation was organized at WIPO in September 2019 with the participation ofMember States and representatives of the commercial, research and non-governmental
sectors.2 At the conclusion of the Conversation, a plan for the continuation of discussions
by moving to a more structured dialogue was agreed in outline. The first step in the plan isfor the WIPO Secretariat to develop a draft list of issues that might provide the basis for ashared understanding of the main questions that need to be discussed or addressed inrelation to IP policy and AI.
3.
The present paper constitutes the draft prepared by the WIPO Secretariat of issues
arising for IP policy in relation to AI. The draft is being made available for comments by allinterested parties, from the government and non-government sectors, including Member States
and their agencies, commercial actors, research institutions, universities, professional and nongovernmental organizations and individuals. All interested parties are invited to submit theircomments to ai2ip@wipo.int by February 14, 2020. Comments are requested on the correct
identification of issues and if there are any missing issues in order to formulate a sharedunderstanding of the main questions to be discussed. Answers to the identified questions are
not required at this stage. Submissions may cover one, more than one, or all issues. Allcomments will be published on the WIPO website.
4.
Following the closure of the comment period, the WIPO Secretariat will revise the Issues
Paper in the light of comments received. The revised Issues Paper will then form the basis of
the Second Session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI, structured in accordance with theIssues Paper, which will be held in May 2020.
5.

The issues identified for discussion are divided into the following areas:(a)Patents(b)

Copyright

(c)

Data

(d)

Designs(e)Technology Gap and Capacity Building(f)Accountability for IP Administrative Decisions

1 A summary of the meeting is available at https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=407578.

The Index of AI initiatives in IP offices is available at WIPO’s dedicated website to AI and IP https://www.wipo.int/ai.
2 A summary of the Conversation is available at https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=459091.

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 3PATENTS
Issue 1: Inventorship and Ownership
6.
In most cases, AI is a tool that assists inventors in the invention process or constitutes afeature of an invention. In these respects, AI does not differ radically from other computerassisted inventions. However, it would now seem clear that inventions can be autonomously
generated by AI, and there are several reported cases of applications for patent protection inwhich the applicant has named an AI application as the inventor.
7.

In the case of inventions autonomously generated by AI:(i)
Should the law permit or require that the AI application be named as the inventor or
should it be required that a human being be named as the inventor? In the event that ahuman inventor is required to be named, should the law give indications of the way inwhich the human inventor should be determined, or should this decision be left to privatearrangements, such as corporate policy, with the possibility of judicial review by appeal inaccordance with existing laws concerning disputes over inventorship?
(ii) The inventorship issue also raises the question of who should be recorded as theowner of a patent involving an AI application. Do specific legal provisions need to be
introduced to govern the ownership of autonomously generated AI inventions, or should
ownership follow from inventorship and any relevant private arrangements, such as
corporate policy, concerning attribution of inventorship and ownership?
(iii) Should the law exclude from the availability of patent protection any invention thathas been generated autonomously by an AI application? See also Issue 2, below.

Issue 2: Patentable Subject Matter and Patentability Guidelines
8.
Computer-assisted inventions and their treatment under patent laws have been thesubject of lengthy discussions in many countries around the world. In the case of AI-generated
or -assisted inventions:(i)Should the law exclude from patent eligibility inventions that are autonomously
generated by an AI application? See also Issue 1(iii), above.
(ii) Should specific provisions be introduced for inventions assisted by AI or should suchinventions be treated in the same way as other computer-assisted inventions?
(iii) Do amendments need to be introduced in patent examination guidelines for AIassisted inventions? If so, please identify which parts or provisions of patent examination
guidelines need to be reviewed.
Issue 3: Inventive Step or Non-Obviousness
9.
A condition of patentability is that the invention involves an inventive step or be nonobvious. The standard applied for assessing non-obviousness is whether the invention would be
obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art to which the invention belongs.
(i)
In the context of AI inventions, what art does the standard refer to? Should the art
be the field of technology of the product or service that emerges as the invention from theAI application?

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 4(ii) Should the standard of a person skilled in the art be maintained where the invention
is autonomously generated by an AI application or should consideration be given to
replacing the person by an algorithm trained with data from a designated field of art?
(iii) What implications will having an AI replacing a person skilled in the art have on thedetermination of the prior art base?
(iv)

Should AI-generated content qualify as prior art?

Issue 4: Disclosure
10. A fundamental goal of the patent system is to disclose technology so that, in the course oftime, the public domain may be enriched and a systematic record of humanity’s technology isavailable and accessible. Patent laws require that the disclosure of an invention be sufficient toenable a person skilled in the relevant art to reproduce the invention.
(i)What are the issues that AI-assisted or AI-generated inventions present for thedisclosure requirement?
(ii) In the case of machine learning, where the algorithm changes over time with accessto data, is the disclosure of the initial algorithm sufficient?
(iii) Would a system of deposit for algorithms, similar to the deposit of microorganisms,
be useful?
(iv) How should data used to train an algorithm be treated for the purposes of
disclosure? Should the data used to train an algorithm be disclosed or described in thepatent application?
(v) Should the human expertise used to select data and to train the algorithm berequired to be disclosed?
Issue 5: General Policy Considerations for the Patent System
11. A fundamental objective of the patent system is to encourage the investment of humanand financial resources and the taking of risk in generating inventions that may contribute
positively to the welfare of society. As such, the patent system is a fundamental component ofinnovation policy more generally. Does the advent of inventions autonomously generated by AI
applications call for a re-assessment of the relevance of the patent incentive to AI-generated
inventions. Specifically,(i)Should consideration be given to a sui generis system of IP rights for AI-generated
inventions in order to adjust innovation incentives for AI?
(ii) Is it too early to consider these questions because the impact of AI on both scienceand technology is still unfolding at a rapid rate and there is, at this stage, insufficientunderstanding of that impact or of what policy measures, if any, might be appropriate in
the circumstances?
COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Issue 6: Authorship and Ownership
12. AI applications are capable of producing literary and artistic works autonomously. This
capacity raises major policy questions for the copyright system, which has always been
intimately associated with the human creative spirit and with respect and reward for, and theWIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 5encouragement of, the expression of human creativity. The policy positions adopted in relation
to the attribution of copyright to AI-generated works will go to the heart of the social purpose forwhich the copyright system exists. If AI-generated works were excluded from eligibility for
copyright protection, the copyright system would be seen as an instrument for encouraging andfavoring the dignity of human creativity over machine creativity. If copyright protection wereaccorded to AI-generated works, the copyright system would tend to be seen as an instrument
favoring the availability for the consumer of the largest number of creative works and of placing
an equal value on human and machine creativity. Specifically,(i)Should copyright be attributed to original literary and artistic works that are
autonomously generated by AI or should a human creator be required?
(ii) In the event copyright can be attributed to AI-generated works, in whom should the
copyright vest? Should consideration be given to according a legal personality to an AI
application where it creates original works autonomously, so that the copyright would vestin the personality and the personality could be governed and sold in a manner similar to a
corporation?
(iii) Should a separate sui generis system of protection (for example, one offering a
reduced term of protection and other limitations, or one treating AI-generated works asperformances) be envisaged for original literary and artistic works autonomously
generated by AI?
Issue 7: Infringement and Exceptions
13. An AI application can produce creative works by learning from data with AI techniquessuch as machine learning. The data used for training the AI application may represent creative
works that are subject to copyright (see also Issue 10). A number of issues arise in this regard,
specifically,(i)Should the use of the data subsisting in copyright works without authorization formachine learning constitute an infringement of copyright? If not, should an explicit
exception be made under copyright law or other relevant laws for the use of such data to
train AI applications?
(ii) If the use of the data subsisting in copyright works without authorization for machinelearning is considered to constitute an infringement of copyright, what would be the impact
on the development of AI and on the free flow of data to improve innovation in AI?
(iii) If the use of the data subsisting in copyright works without authorization for machinelearning is considered to constitute an infringement of copyright, should an exception bemade for at least certain acts for limited purposes, such as the use in non-commercial
user-generated works or the use for research?
(iv) If the use of the data subsisting of copyright works without authorization for machinelearning is considered to constitute an infringement of copyright, how would existing
exceptions for text and data mining interact with such infringement?
(v) Would any policy intervention be necessary to facilitate licensing if the unauthorized
use of data subsisting in copyright works for machine learning were to be considered an
infringement of copyright?
(vi) How would the unauthorized use of data subsisting in copyright works for machinelearning be detected and enforced, in particular when a large number of copyright works
are created by AI?

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 6

Issue 8: Deep Fakes
14. The technology for deep fakes, or the generation of simulated likenesses of persons andtheir attributes, such as voice and appearance, exists and is being deployed. Considerable
controversy surrounds deep fakes, especially when they have been created without theauthorization of a person depicted in the deep fake and when the representation creates actions
or attributes views that are not authentic. Some call for the use of deep fake technology to be
specifically banned or limited. Others point to the possibility of creating audiovisual works thatmight allow the deployment of popular or famous performers after their demise in a continuingmanner; indeed, it might be possible for a person to authorize such use.
15.

Should the copyright system take cognizance of deep fakes and, specifically,(i)Since deep fakes are created on the basis of data that may be the subject of
copyright, to whom should the copyright in a deep fake belong? Should there be a systemof equitable remuneration for persons whose likenesses and “performances” are used in a
deep fake?

Issue 9: General Policy Issues
16. Comments and suggestions identifying any other issues related to the interface between
copyright and AI are welcome. Specifically,(i)
Are there seen or unforeseen consequences of copyright on bias in AI applications?
Or is there a hierarchy of social policies that needs to be envisaged that would promote
the preservation of the copyright system and the dignity of human creation over theencouragement of innovation in AI, or vice versa?
DATA
17. Data are produced in increasingly abundant quantities, for a vast range of purposes, andby a multiplicity of devices and activities commonly used or undertaken throughout the whole
fabric of contemporary society and the economy, such as computing systems, digitalcommunication devices, production and manufacturing plants, transportation vehicles andsystems, surveillance and security systems, sales and distribution systems, researchexperiments and activities, and so on.
18. Data are a critical component of AI since recent AI applications rely upon machinelearning techniques that use data for training and validation. Data are an essential element in
the creation of value by AI and are, thus, potentially economically valuable. Comments on
appropriate access to data protected by copyright used for training AI models should be
included in Issue 7 above.
19. Since data are generated by such a vast and diverse range of devices and activities, it isdifficult to envisage a comprehensive single policy framework for data. There are multiple
frameworks that have a potential application to data, depending on the interest or value that it issought to regulate. These include, for example, the protection of privacy, the avoidance of the
publication of defamatory material, the avoidance of the abuse of market power or the
regulation of competition, the preservation of the security of certain classes of sensitive data or
the suppression of data that are false and misleading to consumers.
20. The present exercise is directed only at data from the perspective of the policies that
underlie the existence of IP, notably, the appropriate recognition of authorship or inventorship,
the promotion of innovation and creativity, and the assurance of fair market competition.

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 7

21. The classical IP system may be considered already to afford certain types of protection todata. Data that represent inventions that are new, non-obvious and useful are protected bypatents. Data that represent independently created industrial designs that are new or original
are likewise protected, as are data that represent original literary or artistic works. Data that are
confidential, or have some business or technological value and are maintained as confidential
by their possessors, are protected against certain acts by certain persons, for example, against
unauthorized disclosure by an employee or research contractor or against theft through a cyber
intrusion.
22. The selection or arrangement of data may also constitute intellectual creations and be
subject to IP protection and some jurisdictions have a sui generis database right for theprotection of the investment made in compiling a database. On the other hand, copyrightprotection is not extended to the data contained in a compilation itself, even if the compilations
constitute copyrightable intellectual creations.
23. The general question that arises for the purposes of the present exercise is whether IP
policy should go further than the classical system and create new rights in data in response to
the new significance that data have assumed as a critical component of AI. The reasons forconsidering such further action would include the encouragement of the development of new
and beneficial classes of data; the appropriate allocation of value to the various actors in
relation to data, notably, data subjects, data producers and data users; and the assurance offair market competition against acts or behavior deemed inimical to fair competition.
Issue 10: Further Rights in Relation to Data(i)
Should IP policy consider the creation of new rights in relation to data or are current
IP rights, unfair competition laws and similar protection regimes, contractual arrangements
and technological measures sufficient to protect data?
(ii) If new IP rights were to be considered for data, what types of data would be thesubject of protection?
(iii) If new IP rights were to be considered for data, what would be the policy reasons forconsidering the creation of any such rights?
(iv) If new IP rights were to be considered for data, what IP rights would be appropriate,exclusive rights or rights of remuneration or both?
(v) Would any new rights be based on the inherent qualities of data (such as its
commercial value) or on protection against certain forms of competition or activity inrelation to certain classes of data that are deemed to be inappropriate or unfair, or onboth?
(vi) How would any such rights affect the free flow of data that may be necessary for the
improvement of AI, science, technology or business applications of AI?
(vii) How would any new IP rights affect or interact with other policy frameworks inrelation to data, such as privacy or security?
(viii) How would any new IP rights be effectively enforced?

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 8DESIGNS
Issue 11: Authorship and Ownership
24. As with inventions, designs may be produced with the assistance of AI and may beautonomously generated by an AI application. In the case of the former, AI-assisted designs,
computer-aided design (CAD) has long been in use and seems to pose no particular problems
for design policy. AI-assisted designs might be considered a variant of computer-aided design
and might be treated in the same way. In the case of AI-generated designs, questions andconsiderations arise that are similar to those that arise with respect to AI-generated inventions(Issue 1, above) and AI-generated creative works (Issue 6, above). Specifically,(i)Should the law permit or require that design protection be accorded to an original
design that has been produced autonomously by an AI application? If a human designer isrequired, should the law give indications of the way in which the human designer should
be determined, or should this decision be left to private arrangements, such as corporate
policy, with the possibility of judicial review by appeal in accordance with existing laws
concerning disputes over authorship?
(ii) Do specific legal provisions need to be introduced to govern the ownership ofautonomously generated AI designs, or should ownership follow from authorship and any
relevant private arrangements, such as corporate policy, concerning attribution of
authorship and ownership?
TECHNOLOGY GAP AND CAPACITY BUILDING
25. The number of countries with expertise and capacity in AI is limited. At the same time, thetechnology of AI is advancing at a rapid pace, creating the risk of the existing technology gap
being exacerbated, rather than reduced, with time. In addition, while capacity is confined to alimited number of countries, the effects of the deployment of AI are not, and will not be, limited
only to the countries that possess capacity in AI.
26. This evolving situation raises a considerable number of questions and challenges, butmany of those questions and challenges lie well beyond IP policy, involving, for example,
questions of labor policy, ethics, human rights and so forth. This present list of issues, and
WIPO’s mandate, concerns IP, innovation and creative expressions only. In the field of IP, arethere any measures or issues that need to be considered that can contribute to reducing theadverse impact of the technology gap in AI?
Issue 12: Capacity Building(i)What policy measures in the field of IP policy might be envisaged that may
contribute to the containment or the reduction in the technology gap in AI capacity? Are
any such measures of a practical nature or a policy nature?
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IP ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
27. As indicated in paragraph 2(a), above, AI applications are being increasingly deployed in
IP Administration. The present list of issues is not concerned with questions relating to thedevelopment and possible sharing of such AI applications among Member States, which arebeing discussed in various working meetings of the Organization and in various bilateral andother relationships between different Member States. However, the use of AI in IP
Administration also raises certain policy questions, most notably the question of accountability
for decisions taken in the prosecution and administration of IP applications.

WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1
page 9Issue 13: Accountability for Decisions in IP Administration(i)
Should any policy or practical measures be taken to ensure accountability fordecisions made in the prosecution and administration of IP applications where thosedecisions are taken by AI applications (for example, the encouragement of transparency
with respect to the use of AI and in relation to the technology used)?
(ii) Do any legislative changes need to be envisaged to facilitate decision-making by AI
applications (for example, reviewing legislative provisions on powers and discretions ofcertain designated officials)?

[End of document]