Patent Eligibility For AI-Designed Biodegradable Nanomaterials
1. Understanding the Subject Matter
Patent eligibility in most jurisdictions (U.S., EU, etc.) revolves around what constitutes patentable subject matter. In the U.S., under 35 U.S.C §101, an invention must be a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. However, natural phenomena, abstract ideas, and laws of nature are excluded.
For AI-designed biodegradable nanomaterials, there are three key elements to consider:
AI Involvement: If AI autonomously creates a material or composition, can the AI be recognized as an inventor? Most jurisdictions currently require a human inventor.
Biodegradable Nanomaterial: The material must be novel, non-obvious, and useful.
Patent Eligibility: It must not be merely a natural phenomenon (e.g., naturally occurring nanostructures), but an inventive step over natural processes.
2. Case Law in the U.S. (and Relevant Globally)
Here are detailed discussions of more than five cases that directly or indirectly influence patent eligibility in AI and biotech contexts:
Case 1: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The inventor, Chakrabarty, created a genetically modified bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil. The PTO initially rejected the patent, claiming living organisms are not patentable.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that a human-made, genetically engineered organism is patentable as a “manufacture” under 35 U.S.C §101.
Relevance: This case sets a precedent for AI-designed biodegradable nanomaterials: if the nanomaterial is human-directed and engineered, it is more likely patentable even if similar materials exist in nature.
Case 2: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus (2012)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The patent claimed a method of optimizing drug dosage based on metabolite levels. The court found that the claims were essentially a law of nature.
Decision: Claims must include an inventive concept beyond a natural phenomenon.
Relevance: For AI-designed materials, if an AI merely discovers a naturally occurring nanoparticle or uses standard biodegradation mechanisms, it cannot be patented. There must be a specific inventive design.
Case 3: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Alice Corp. claimed a computerized scheme for mitigating settlement risk. Court rejected it as an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
Decision: Simply using AI or a computer to implement an idea does not make it patentable.
Relevance: AI-assisted design of nanomaterials must involve technical innovation, not just automation of known processes.
Case 4: Thaler v. USPTO (DABUS case, 2021)
Court: U.S. District Court & Federal Circuit
Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler filed patents for inventions created by an AI called DABUS, claiming the AI as the inventor. USPTO rejected, citing that inventor must be a natural person.
Decision: Courts consistently held AI cannot be recognized as an inventor under current law.
Relevance: For AI-designed nanomaterials, a human inventor must be listed, even if AI generated the design.
Case 5: In re Roslin Institute (Dolly the Sheep, 2003)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Facts: A patent application claimed a cloned sheep. Court ruled cloning naturally occurring organisms is not patentable.
Decision: Only non-naturally occurring modifications are patentable.
Relevance: Biodegradable nanomaterials must be engineered with novelty, not mere copies of naturally occurring nanostructures.
Case 6: Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. Association for Molecular Pathology (2013)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Myriad had patents on isolated DNA sequences. Court ruled that naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, though cDNA (synthetic DNA) is patentable.
Relevance: Similarly, naturally occurring nanomaterials cannot be patented, but AI-engineered variations can be.
Case 7: Application of Flook (1978)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Patent claim involved a method for adjusting alarm limits in chemical processes. Court found it was just an algorithm applied to a known process.
Decision: Algorithms themselves are not patentable, but application to a novel process may be.
Relevance: If AI designs a nanomaterial using standard biodegradation principles, patent eligibility depends on the novel application and design.
3. Key Takeaways for AI-Designed Biodegradable Nanomaterials
Human Inventorship Required: AI alone cannot be recognized as an inventor (Thaler v. USPTO).
Novelty and Non-Obviousness: The material must be distinct from natural or conventional nanomaterials (Chakrabarty, Myriad).
Technical Innovation: AI assistance alone is insufficient; there must be an inventive contribution (Alice, Flook).
Exclusion of Natural Phenomena: Naturally occurring nanoparticles or structures cannot be patented, only engineered or synthetically modified versions (Mayo, Roslin, Myriad).
Patent Drafting Considerations: Claims should highlight:
Method of AI-assisted design
Specific chemical modifications
Functional properties (e.g., biodegradability, biocompatibility)
Practical applications in medicine, agriculture, or materials science
4. Summary
Patent eligibility for AI-designed biodegradable nanomaterials is complex but feasible:
The material must be artificially engineered.
The human inventor must be clearly stated.
The invention must show novel, non-obvious technical features beyond nature or standard AI routines.
Case law strongly emphasizes avoiding claims that are abstract, natural phenomena, or mere algorithms.
RELATED Blog
comments