The Machine’s Mind Matters: Using Logic to Disclose Artificial Intelligence Inventions

Clicks: 2
ID: 322639
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #21 of 24 articles by views in GRUR International

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Inventors must disclose their inventions in a clear, concise and complete manner to enable skilled artisans to practice the invention without undue experimentation. AI inventions may not fulfil this requirement for various reasons, such as the unintelligibility of AI internal mechanisms. Inventors are currently required to disclose components of AI inventions, such as datasets, algorithms, nodes, parameters, outputs, etc. I term the disclosure of these components as structural disclosure. However, structural disclosure is marred by uncertainties, and it is not clear what exactly constitutes the structure of AI inventions for purposes of disclosure. This article argues that logic – which I conceptualise as a structured understanding of the internal mechanisms of AI systems that unveils the relational link between the inputs and outputs – can resolve stark disclosure challenges. Based on what I term as functional disclosure, I contend that inventors should be incentivised to disclose the logic of AI inventions. This article makes three scholarly contributions. First, it establishes the important role that logic plays in AI inventions and, subsequently, positions logic as the vehicle through which inventors can surmount the limitations of structural disclosure and fulfil the disclosure requirement more satisfactorily. Second, it problematises patent law’s indifference toward the logic of inventions and demonstrates how this indifference undermines the teaching role of patent law. Ultimately, borrowing from the market exclusivity regimes for pharmaceutical inventions, this article lays down a balanced framework for implementing functional disclosure without threatening the bargain embedded in the disclosure doctrine.
Reference Key
openalex_W7171467571 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Fidelice Opany
Journal GRUR International
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/grurint/ikag071
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.