Topicality - GDI 2024

Topicality- IPR-GDI 24
The Resolution
Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly strengthen its protection of domestic intellectual property rights in copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks.
Violations
1nc- AI Inventorship Topicality
A. Interpretation: Topical affs must strengthen IPR protection for natural persons
The Patent Act is clear- patents protect only the rights of natural persons.
Malek and Shulman, Vedder Price intellectual property litigators, 22 (Monika and Daniel H., “Thaler v. Vidal: Artificial Intelligence Inventions Create Real Issues,” Sept. 29, https://www.vedderprice.com/thaler-v-vidal-artificial-intelligence-inventions-create-real-issues#overview Accessed 7/18/24 GAL)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems may invent, but are they inventors? The Federal Circuit recently answered this question in Thaler v. Vidal, holding that an AI system cannot be listed as a named inventor on a patent application. While it may seem that this decision provided much needed clarity in the field of intellectual property protection for AI inventions, there remains a gap in how to protect such inventions while promoting innovation.
The AI system at issue in Thaler, Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, or “DABUS” for short, was developed by physicist Dr. Stephen Thaler. In 2019, Dr. Thaler tested the limits of patent law by filing patent applications in more than a dozen countries for two inventions created by DABUS. In the applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Dr. Thaler, instead of listing an inventor’s last name, wrote that “the invention [was] generated by artificial intelligence.” The USPTO denied Dr. Thaler’s applications on the grounds that “a machine does not qualify as an inventor.” Dr. Thaler challenged the USPTO’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court agreed with the USPTO and concluded that an “inventor” under the Patent Act must be an “individual,” and the plain meaning of “individual” as used in the statute is a natural person.
Dr. Thaler then appealed to the Federal Circuit, advocating for a broad interpretation of “individual” that would include AI systems. Dr. Thaler pointed to the Patent Act’s use of “whoever,” which encompasses corporations and other non-human entities for the purposes of infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 271. Dr. Thaler also argued that protecting inventions created by AI would further the policy underlying patent law of encouraging innovation and public disclosure. The Federal Circuit steered clear of any theoretical analysis of whether an AI system can be an inventor and instead took a textualist approach, focusing on statutory interpretation of the Patent Act. The Court ultimately found that there is no ambiguity in the Patent Act requirement that an inventor listed on a patent application be a human being. The Court relied on a Supreme Court ruling that, when used “[a]s a noun, ‘individual’ ordinarily means a human being, a person.” The Court found further support in the Dictionary Act, ordinary usage, multiple dictionaries, the use of “personal pronouns – ‘himself’ or ‘herself’ – to refer to an ‘individual’’’ in Section 115(b) of the Patent Act, and its own precedent “that neither corporations nor sovereigns can be inventors” to support its holding that “inventors” are limited to “natural persons” under the Patent Act.
On September 19, 2022, Dr. Thaler filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc challenging the Federal Circuit’s definition of “individual.” Dr. Thaler also argued that the Court should take into consideration the final sentence of Section 103 of the Patent Act, which reads “[p]atentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.” While the odds of overturning the panel’s decision are low, Dr. Thaler is likely to seek further review from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it is clear that the USPTO will not issue patents where the named inventor is an AI system; however, the door has been left open for how the future of AI inventions will be treated in the intellectual property framework.
The bright line position of the USPTO and Federal Circuit that AI cannot be an inventor avoids several thorny issues that would otherwise require congressional intervention to amend the patent laws. In particular, under U.S. patent law, the inventor is the owner of a patent unless and until ownership of the invention is assigned in writing. Were a non-human to be an inventor, the rules of patent ownership would be wholly indeterminate. An AI computer cannot independently execute a written assignment, so what would it mean for the computer to own the patent? Congress would be faced with numerous potential fixes to address ownership, such as assigning ownership to the programmer of the AI software, assigning ownership to the user of the AI software, assigning ownership to the party that inputs to the AI, assigning ownership to the owner/licensor of the AI software, or even a borderline science fiction scenario where the computer owns the invention.
On the other hand, the bright line rule may have other consequences in industries in which AI is an emerging important tool for discovery, especially when those industries are reliant on patent protection. For example, AI is becoming an indispensable tool in the chemical, biological and pharmaceutical industries to facilitate cheaper, quicker and more effective discovery and development, such as by proposing, refining and even “inventing” new molecules and chemicals through iterative machine learning processes. The degree to which those discoveries made with the help of AI tools are patentable may be the next frontier of the intersection of AI and patent law.
2. “Strengthen” means “to make… stronger” according to the Oxford English Dictionary Online
Oxford English Dictionary Online (“Strengthen” verb https://www.oed.com/dictionary/strengthen_v?tab=meaning_and_use#20580952 )
To make or become strong or stronger.
B. Violation:
The plan only allows listing AI as an inventor- it doesn’t strengthen protection of IPR in patents because only natural persons have legal rights, and it only reassigns the patent rights to a different entity
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Limits- patents are only for individual natural persons- allowing the aff to redefine concepts of inventorship and personhood opens the floodgates to community property rights, corporate inventorship, IPR for non-human animals, rights of nature, etc.
2. Ground- core neg ground is predicated on stronger IPR- the plan just reassigns patents, it doesn’t strengthen them.
D. Topicality is a procedural voting issue to direct discussion towards the best interpretation of the topic.
1nc- Biopiracy Topicality
A. Interpretation: Topical affs must make IP acquisition easier or strengthen enforcement
“Strengthen protection” means making IP acquisition easier, expanding the scope of protection, or strengthening enforcement for infringement.
Mandel 18 (Gregory N., Dean & Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” Minnesota Law Review, https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mandel_MLR.pdf )
809-810
The primary variable for analysis is whether a given Supreme Court decision or legislative action strengthened or weakened intellectual property protection. Consistent with prior re- search in this context, strengthened versus weakened refers to the extent of protection afforded to the intellectual property rights owner.11 Accordingly, Supreme Court decisions that make it easier to acquire intellectual property rights; broaden the scope of intellectual property protection; make it easier to prove infringement; or strengthen remedies for infringement are all considered to strengthen intellectual property protection. Decisions that have the opposite effects weaken protection.12
A number of the Supreme Court decisions are neutral in this regard. Neutral coding can occur for multiple reasons, such as procedural decisions that affect both intellectual property owners and opposing parties in equivalent manners, or decisions that regulate ownership among competing claimants. An example of the former type of neutral decision is Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 13 This case clarified the proper standard of appellate review for a district court’s factual findings made in patent claim construction.14 The Court held that the standard of review is clear error,15 a decision that neither strengthened nor weakened intellectual property owner rights because sometimes district courts construe patent claims in fa- vor of patentees and other times in favor of alleged infringers.16 Decisions that neither strengthened nor weakened intellectual property rights were classified as neutral.
Three analysts applied this methodology to independently code each Supreme Court intellectual property decision. There was full coder agreement on approximately 90% of the cases. Where there was not agreement, the coders met for discussion and were able to reach a unanimous agreement in each case.
B. Violation- The plan WEAKENS protection by increasing requirements for acquiring IP and shrinking the scope of what can be patented.
C. Reasons to prefer-
1. Limits- the aff interp makes the topic bidirectional, doubling our research burden.
2. Ground- all our links are based on STRONGER enforcement of IP, their interp means we have to be prepared to go for both “IP Good” and “IP Bad” strategies.
D. Topicality is a procedural voting issue to direct discussion towards the best interpretation of the topic.
Resolved
Resolved- Enact Law/Formal Vote
‘Resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law
Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
Determination reached by voting
Webster’s 98 (Revised Unabridged, Dictionary.com)
Resolved: 5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).
Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the context of the resolution
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)
Resolved:
5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).
Resolved means a formal resolution from a deliberative body
American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition
(Copyright 2018, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=resolved )
n.
1. Firmness of purpose; resolution: "my fierce, indignant resolve to visit those sun-kissed islands" (Caitlin Flanagan).
2. A determination or decision; a fixed purpose: "She had come to a resolve to undertake outdoor work in her native village" (Thomas Hardy).
3. A formal resolution made by a deliberative body.
Resolved means decide by formal vote
American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition
(Copyright 2018, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=resolved )
b. To decide or express by formal vote: The legislature resolved that the official should be impeached.
Resolved- Firm Decision/Specific Course of Action
Firm decision
AHD 6 (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved)
Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision. See synonyms at decide. 3. To decide or express by formal vote.
Specific course of action
AHD 6 (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved)
INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination: resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents. 3. Music To undergo resolution.
Resolved- Certainty
Resolved means the removal of doubt
American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition
(Copyright 2018, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=resolved )
4. To remove or dispel (doubts).
Resolved Doesn’t Require Certainty
“Resolved” doesn’t require certainty
Webster’s 9 – Merriam Webster 2009
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate
Resolved Doesn’t Require Immediacy
Resolved doesn’t require immediacy
PTE 9 – Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009
(http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of life.”
:
Colon is meaningless --- everything after it is what’s important
Webster’s 00 (Guide to Grammar and Writing, http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm)
Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.
The colon just elaborates on what the community was resolved to debate
Encarta 7 (World Dictionary, “colon”, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861 598666)
co·lon (plural co·lons) noun Definition: 1. punctuation mark: the punctuation mark (:) used to divide distinct but related sentence components such as clauses in which the second elaborates on the first, or to introduce a list, quotation, or speech. A colon is sometimes used in U.S. business letters after the salutation. Colons are also used between numbers in statements of proportion or time and Biblical or literary references.
The
“The” indicates reference to a noun as a whole
Webster’s 5 (Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>
The requires specification
Random House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
(used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
The indicates a proper noun
Random House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
“The” means all parts
Encarta 9 (World English Dictionary, “The”, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861719495)
2. indicating generic class: used to refer to a person or thing considered generically or universally Exercise is good for the heart. She played the violin. The dog is a loyal pet.
‘The’ means all parts.
Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>
Means the noun must be interpreted generically
Webster’s 9 (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, “The”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the)
3 a—used as a function word before a singular noun to indicate that the noun is to be understood generically <the dog is a domestic animal> b—used as a function word before a singular substantivized adjective to indicate an abstract idea <an essay on the sublime>
“The” is used to denote a specific entity
American Heritage, 00 (Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
the1 P (th before a vowel; th before a consonant) def.art. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days. Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass: the weather; a wind from the south. Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; the stage. Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic. Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties.
The word “the” implies there is only one – as in the USFG
Cambridge Dictionaries Online 7
used to refer to things or people when only one exists at any one time:
‘The’ denotes uniqueness – distinguishes the federal government from other governments
Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class <the President> <the Lord>
The is limiting
Words and Phrases ‘8 “The” v41B
Colo. 1969. In construing statute, definite article "the" particularizes the subject which it precedes and is word of limitation as opposed to indefinite or generalizing force of "a" or "an".— Brooks v. Zabka, 450 P.2d 653, 168 Colo. 265.— Statut 199.
‘The’ is restrictive
Words and Phrases ‘8 “The” v41B
Pa. 1988. Fact that legislature, in drafting pension statutes, in one instance used phrase "in service" and hi another used phrase "in the service" connotes distinction in phrases themselves; "the" by its very nature restricts the word "service," to a particular "service," and thus, "in the service" permits benefits to be paid to fireman who suffers injuries while member of a department, while "in service" permits benefits to be paid to a member of a department who suffers injuries whiie performing his duties. 53 P.S. §§ 771, 39321.—Chirico v. Board of Sup'rs for Newtown Tp„ 544 A.2d 1313, 518 Pa. 572.—Mun Corp 200(5).
USFG
USFG refers to the 3 branches of government established by the US Constitution.
US Legal.com 2016
https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
“Federal Government” means the United States government
Black’s Law 99 (Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.703)
The U.S. government—also termed national government
National

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.