Patent Litigation Strategies In Neuro-Ai Hybrid Systems.
Patent Litigation Strategies in Neuro‑AI Hybrid Systems
Neuro‑AI hybrid systems combine neuroscience (brain-computer interfaces, neural signal processing, cognitive modeling) with artificial intelligence (ML algorithms, data analysis, adaptive systems). Patents in this space are highly complex because they often involve software, hardware, algorithms, and medical devices. Litigation strategies reflect this complexity.
Core Litigation Strategies
Patent Eligibility (Abstract Idea Challenge)
Many Neuro‑AI patents involve algorithms. Courts may dismiss claims if they are seen as abstract ideas with no technical improvement.
Claim Construction
Precisely defining the scope of claims is crucial. How a “neural signal processor” or “AI inference module” is interpreted can decide infringement outcomes.
Validity Challenges (Prior Art/Obviousness)
Defendants often argue that claimed inventions were obvious in light of prior neuroscience or AI publications.
Inventorship and Ownership
Especially in AI-generated inventions, disputes may arise over whether the claimed inventor is a human (required) or AI-assisted.
Non-Infringement Defense
Showing that the accused product or system does not perform all elements of the claims.
Licensing & Settlement Strategy
Given high costs and uncertainty, many cases settle early or lead to cross-licensing agreements.
Detailed Case Examples
Case 1: Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (2025)
Court: Federal Circuit
Issue: Machine learning patent eligibility
Facts: Recentive claimed patents on real-time network mapping and scheduling using AI.
Outcome: Court ruled claims were abstract ideas, as the AI steps were generic.
Strategy Lessons:
Patents must show concrete technical improvements, not just use of AI.
For Neuro‑AI, tie claims to specific neural hardware improvements or processing techniques.
Case 2: Thaler v. Comptroller (UK, 2023)
Issue: AI as inventor
Facts: Thaler sought patents listing AI as inventor.
Outcome: Court ruled AI cannot be an inventor; only humans can.
Strategy Lessons:
Maintain clear human inventorship records.
For Neuro‑AI teams using AI for discovery, ensure all inventive contributions are attributed to humans.
Case 3: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft (2016)
Issue: Eligibility of software claims
Facts: Enfish claimed a database architecture improving speed and storage.
Outcome: Court found claims patent-eligible because they improved computer technology itself, not just abstract data handling.
Strategy Lessons:
For Neuro‑AI, emphasize how algorithms improve neural signal processing or interface performance.
Highlight tangible system-level improvements rather than abstract AI concepts.
Case 4: Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
Issue: Patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions
Facts: Process for curing rubber using a computer-controlled press.
Outcome: Patent allowed; algorithm tied to a physical process is patentable.
Strategy Lessons:
Integration of AI with a physical neural device can make claims patentable.
Hybrid system patents benefit from showing concrete effects on hardware or neural systems.
Case 5: ParTec AG v. Microsoft/Nvidia (2024)
Issue: AI system patents in infrastructure
Facts: ParTec alleged infringement of modular AI system patents managing CPU/GPU coordination.
Outcome: Court analyzed hardware-software hybrid claims; multi-jurisdiction proceedings ensued.
Strategy Lessons:
Hardware-software interfaces are litigable, relevant to Neuro‑AI devices.
Global strategy is important for multi-country patent portfolios.
Key Takeaways for Neuro‑AI Litigation
| Focus Area | Strategic Action |
|---|---|
| Eligibility | Show concrete technical improvements, not abstract AI |
| Claim Drafting | Tie claims to system function and physical neural processing |
| Inventorship | Document human contribution clearly |
| Defense | Use prior art, non-infringement, and claim construction carefully |
| Business | Consider licensing or early settlement to reduce costs |
RELATED Blog
comments