Not recognizing AI would make the U.S. fall behind in global IP race

"Current patent and copyright laws suggest that human creation is required to obtain IP protection. Specifically, a patent may be obtained by "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 56 The use of the word "whoever" implies that only a person can be considered an "inventor." 57 Generally, a patent application must indicate the name of an inventor. 58 The inventor is the one "who conceived the invention" and "maintains intellectual domination of the work." 59 *The conception of an invention is the "complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act" and it is "the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and [365] permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice . . . ." 60 Similar to "whoever," the use of the word "mind" seems to imply that the law assumes the inventor is a living individual. Despite this assumption, patent stakeholders in the U.S. recognize that AI can be more than just an assistant to humans in the inventing process. 61 There is evidence that inventions created by non-humans have been patented. 62 Thus, patent law needs to adapt to AI's emerging capabilities. Absent recognition that, at a minimum, an invention can be jointly invented by AI, the U.S. may be disadvantaged globally. For example, some foreign patent systems do not require the applicant to identify the inventor. 63 If U.S. law cannot protect AI inventions in the U.S., the result could hamper future U.S. innovation and investment."