United States: Patenting The Future Of Medicine: The Intersection Of Patent Law And Artificial Intelligence In Medicine

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the world of medicine, and the intellectual property directed to these inventions must keep pace. AI computers are diagnosing medical conditions and disorders at a rate equal to or better than their human peers, all while developing their own software code and algorithms to do so. These recent advances raise issues of patentability, inventorship, and ownership as machine-based learning evolves.

Artificial Intelligence

In the realm of AI, what was once science fiction is becoming fact. AI is "a field of science and engineering concerned with the computational understanding of what is commonly called intelligent behavior, and with the creation of artifacts that exhibit such behavior."1 While the concept of AI is not new,2 the last three decades have marked a surge in the development of medical AI.3 AI techniques utilized in medicine include artificial neural networks, fuzzy expert systems, evolutionary computation, and hybrid intelligent systems.4

Artificial neural networks are formed of interconnected computer processors that perform parallel processing.5 These networks can learn from historical examples and known patterns and are thus used extensively in clinical diagnosis and image analysis.6  Neural networks have been used for diagnosing prostates as benign or malignant, cervical screening, and imaging analysis (including radiographs, ultrasounds, CTs, and MRIs), as well as for analyzing heart waveforms to diagnose conditions such as atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias.7

For example, researchers at Stanford University trained a neural network to classify skin lesions into either benign or malignant groupings based on known images and outcomes.8 The researchers started with an algorithm developed by Google to perform image recognition9 and then trained their neural network to recognize skin cancer using 129,450 clinical images of 2,032 different diseases.10 The neural network was then tested against board-certified dermatologists on clinical images that had been confirmed through biopsy.11 The AI performed on par with the certified dermatologists, demonstrating that the AI was capable of classifying skin cancer with the same level of competence as the trained dermatologists.12

As yet another example, digital health start-up Cognoa utilized machine learning AI to diagnose developmental delays in children based on information and videos sent in by parents.13 The machine learning model was trained using 891 autism cases and 75 nonautism controls to recognize autism behaviors in order to make a diagnosis.14 The AI was found to have a sensitivity of 89.9 percent in detecting autism, showing promise as a screening tool.15

Fuzzy logic AI rests on the premise that everything is a matter of degree, utilizing a continuous set membership from 0 to 1 instead of the traditional Boolean logic that uses sharp distinctions between 0 and 1 to define the algorithm.16 Because diseases, symptoms, and diagnoses are described in imprecise terms, fuzzy logic can recognize "partial truth logics," beyond just the true and false values applied in traditional programming.17 Fuzzy logic AI has been applied to cancer diagnosis for lung cancer, acute leukemia, breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer.18

"Evolutionary computation is the general term for several computational techniques based on natural evolution process that imitates the mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest in solving real-world problems."19 Genetic algorithms are the most widely used form of evolutionary computation in medicine, creating numerous solutions to a single problem, and then evolving those solutions from one generation to the next to arrive at the best solution.20 Evolutionary computation has been used in diagnosis, prognosis, imaging, and signal processing.21

Questions Surrounding Patenting AI in Medicine

As the use of AI in medicine becomes even more prevalent, the patent system must answer increasingly difficult questions regarding the protection afforded these technologies. The first, and perhaps most obvious, question is that of subject matter eligibility. With the Supreme Court decisions in Alice and Mayo, the hurdle to meet subject matter eligibility has grown ever higher.22

In Mayo, the Supreme Court found that claims directed to the relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a drug dosage will prove ineffective or cause harm were not subject matter eligible under § 101.23 According to the Court, "[b]eyond picking out the relevant audience, namely those who administer doses of thiopurine drugs, the claim simply tells doctors to: (1) measure (somehow) the current level of the relevant metabolite, (2) use particular (unpatentable) laws of nature (which the claim sets forth) to calculate the current toxicity/inefficacy limits, and (3) reconsider the drug dosage in light of the law."24 Finding the claims lacked patent-eligible subject matter, the Court concluded that the claims provide "instructions [that] add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by those in the field."25

Alice addressed the holding of Mayo, enunciating a two-step test for subject matter patent eligibility: (1) determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept (laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena); and (2) determine whether the claim's elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.26

These two recent Supreme Court cases present a hurdle that medical AI inventions will have to overcome in order to receive patent protection. Current AI medical device/system patents are directed to both the methods and apparatuses that perform the above-described analyses. Many AI medical patents are directed to the AI algorithms and the machines used to generate those algorithms.27

For example, Cognoa, described above, has filed a patent application directed to "methods and apparatus to determine developmental progress with artificial intelligence and user input."28 The claims of the Cognoa application generally protect an apparatus "for evaluating a subject for risk of having a developmental disorder"29 Dependent claims further define the hardware used and processing steps followed in performing that evaluation.30 The broadest claims, however, do not require that level of detail. Claim 1, for example, is as follows:

An apparatus for evaluating a subject for risk of having a developmental disorder among two or more related developmental disorders, the apparatus comprising:

a processor comprising a tangible medium configured with instructions to,

present a question to the subject, the question configured to assess a clinical characteristic related to the two or more related developmental disorders,

receive an answer corresponding to the clinical characteristic of the subject related to the two or more related developmental disorders; and

determine, in response to the answer, whether the subject is at greater risk of a first developmental disorder or a second developmental disorder of the two or more related developmental disorders, with a sensitivity and specificity of at least 80%.31

These AI inventions in medicine are directed to diagnosis and prognosis, relating known images to new cases and extrapolating based on the similarities or differences between the two. In some instances, this is the same process followed by a doctor or medical expert, just with greater efficiency or accuracy. The steps for diagnosis struck down in Mayo echo the steps taken in many medical AI algorithms.

Indeed, the Federal Circuit has already found revolutionary diagnostic technology to be patent-ineligible subject matter under the Mayo/Alice framework. In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the court concluded that a novel method of prenatal diagnosis of fetal DNA was not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, despite agreeing that the claimed method "reflects a significant human contribution . . . that revolutionized prenatal care."32 The patent claims were generally directed to detecting the presence of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. Because the presence of cell-free fetal DNA was a natural phenomenon, the court turned to the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework—whether the claim contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the naturally occurring phenomenon into patent-eligible subject matter.33 The court found that the second step was not met because the method steps "were well-understood, conventional, and routine," despite acknowledging their breakthrough nature.34

Although the Supreme Court cautioned against construing the exclusionary principle of § 101 overbroadly, "lest it swallow all of patent law,"35 many believe it has done just that in the life sciences and medical spaces.36 The concurring opinion in Ariosa echoed these concerns, stating that "[b]ut for the sweeping language in the Supreme Court's Mayo opinion, [there was] no reason, in policy or statute, why this breakthrough invention should be deemed patent ineligible."37 The same reasoning could well curtail the patent protections afforded medical AI absent a change in Supreme Court precedent or statute. Until such a change occurs, AI inventors and owners must draft their patents with an eye to this two-step test, including features related to the AI in the claims, such as detailing the computing or mathematical techniques applied by the system or describing how the computer interacts with other components to drive the AI processing.

In addition to § 101 concerns, AI in medicine raises questions of inventorship and ownership in patent law. The US patent system only recognizes individuals as inventors,38 not companies39 or machines.40 But with AI, it may be the machine that is taking the inventive leap, not the human programmer. Recently, both Google and Facebook have seen AI develop its own language to perform the assigned tasks, eschewing known languages in favor of a more efficient means of communication.41 As the use of AI grows in medicine and the life sciences, it is more and more likely that the AI will be the entity taking the inventive step, drawing new conclusions between the observed and the unknown. Indeed, current AI systems develop their own code as a result of the system's training.42 If that is the case, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts will have to decide whether the current Patent Act encompasses computer-based inventors, and if not, who among the humans responsible for the AI should be considered an inventor.43 The list of possible human inventors includes the AI software and hardware developers, the medical professionals or experts who provided the data set with known values or otherwise provided input into the development of the AI, and/or those who reviewed the AI results and recognized that an invention had been made.

Similarly, AI may confuse the question of ownership for medical inventions generated by the AI itself. Patent ownership often turns on the question of inventorship44 (followed by assignment), and thus will be equally complicated when AI develops its own code and conceives its own inventions. Given that AI continues to advance after its initial programming, the question of inventorship and ownership may have to be answered years after the initial system programming. Development, assignment, and employment contracts will have to account for this possibility of continued and ongoing AI invention.

Finally, AI may impact one of the most basic tenets of patentability because the "person of ordinary skill in the art" may no longer be a person. Claim construction, novelty, and obviousness are all determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. With the rise of AI, the question must be answered, who (or what) is that "person"? Is it the AI itself that developed its own code and network? Is it the medical professional or experts against whom the AI is compared and who prepared the initial data that was used to program the AI? Is it the software and hardware developers who designed the original AI system? The answer to these questions could well determine the patentability of an invention as well as its scope.


As the use of AI in medicine grows ever more prevalent and sophisticated, these questions will have to be answered by Congress, the USPTO, and the courts. The most pressing question to be resolved is that of subject matter eligibility, so that innovation in this burgeoning field is not stifled. The long shadow cast by Mayo and Alice has already prevented the patenting of "revolutionary" diagnostic technology; patent drafters must take care to prevent the same from occurring with AI inventions until this question is answered. From there, the definitions of "person," "inventor," and "individual" will have to be revisited, so that our understanding of inventorship and ownership evolves with this rapidly advancing technology. Early recognition and resolution of these issues will allow patent law to keep pace with this new "rise of the machines."


1 1 Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence 54–57 (Stuart C. Shapiro ed., 2d ed. 1992).

2 Alan Turing is credited as the founder of modern computer science and AI, coining the "Turing test" to answer the question whether machines can think. A.M. Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 59 Mind 433, 433–34 (1950).

3 A.N. Ramesh et al., Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 86 Annals Royal C. Surgeons Eng. 334 (2004).

4 Id. at 335.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 335–36.

8 Andre Esteva et al., Dermatologist-Level Classification of Skin Cancer with Deep Neural Networks, 542 Nature 115 (Feb. 2, 2017).

9 Taylor Kubota, Deep Learning Algorithm Does as Well as Dermatologists in Identifying Skin Cancer, Stan. News (Jan. 25, 2017), http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/25/artificial-intelligence-used-identify-skin-cancer/.

10 Esteva et al., supra note 8.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Artificial Intelligence Is on the Precipice of Revolutionizing Medical Diagnosis, 13D Res. (Apr. 14, 2017), https://latest.13d.com/artificial-intelligence-is-on-the-precipice-of-revolutionizing-medical-diagnosis-be6427239f58; see also Cognoa, https://www.cognoa.com/ (last visited Nov. 4, 2017); Marlena Duda et al., Clinical Evaluation of a Novel and Mobile Autism Risk Assessment, 46 J. Autism & Developmental Disorders 1953, 1953 (2016).

14 Duda et al., supra note 13, at 1956.

15 Id. at 1953.

16 Ramesh et al., supra note 3, at 336.

17 Angela Torres & Juan J. Nieto, Fuzzy Logic in Medicine and Bioinformatics, J. Biomedicine & Biotechnology (2006).

18 Id.

19 Ramesh et al., supra note 3, at 336.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).

23 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 69.

24 Id. at 82.

25 Id.

26 Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.

27 See, e.g., Artificial Intelligence Sys. for Genetic Analysis, U.S. Patent No. 8,693,751 (filed Jan. 12, 2012); Clinical Decision-Making Artificial Intelligence Object Oriented Sys. & Method, U.S. Patent App. No. 14/324,396 (filed July 7, 2014); Integrated Med. Platform, U.S. Patent App. No. 15/039,419 (filed July 7, 2015); Local Diagnostic & Remote Learning Neural Networks for Med. Diagnosis, U.S. Patent App. No. 00/027,220 (filed Oct. 3, 2000).

28 U.S. Patent. App. No. 15/234,814 (filed Aug. 11, 2016).

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 788 F.3d 1371, 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

33 Id.

34 Id. at 1377.

35 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2012)).

36 Alexa Johnson, A Crisis of Patent Law and Medical Innovation: The Category of Diagnostic Claims in the Wake of Ariosa v. Sequenom, 27 Health Matrix 435 (2017); Patent Publius, Federal Circuit Threatens Innovation: Dissecting the Ariosa v. Sequenom Opinion, Ctr. for Protection Intell. Prop. (June 23, 2015), https://cpip.gmu.edu/2015/06/23/federal-circuit-threatens-innovation-dissecting-the-sequenom-v-ariosa-opinion/; Gene Quinn, Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics, IPWatchdog (June 27, 2016), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/27/70409/id=70409/.

37 Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1381 (Linn, J., concurring).

38 35 U.S.C. § 100(f).

39 New Idea Farm Equip. Corp. v. Sperry Corp., 916 F.2d 1561, 1566 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

40 Ben Hattenback & Joshua Glucoft, Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence, 19 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 32, 46 (2015).

41 Tony Bradley, Facebook AI Creates Its Own Language in Creepy Preview of Our Potential Future, Forbes (July 31, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/07/31/facebook-ai-creates-its-own-language-in-creepy-preview-of-our-potential-future/#671deb97292c; Sam Wong, Google Translate AI Invents Its Own Language to Translate with, New Scientist (Nov. 30, 2016), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114748-google-translate-ai-invents-its-own-language-to-translate-with/.

42 Toby Bond, How Artificial Intelligence Is Set to Disrupt Our Legal Framework for Intellectual Property Rights, IPWatchdog (June 18, 2017), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/18/artificial-intelligence-disrupt-legal-framework-intellectual-property-rights/id=84319/.

43 Hattenback & Glucoft, supra note 40, at 46.

44 Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
23 Sep 2018, Seminar, Chicago, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Intellectual Property Owners Association Annual Meeting, supporting the Women in IP Networking Brunch.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions