Let’s ask artificial intelligence: how good is your grammar?

About the authors

Parminder Lally is a senior associate at Appleyard Lees IP LLP. Parminder specialises in drafting and prosecuting patent applications for computer-implemented inventions. She has built a substantial reputation working with high-growth start-ups, spin-outs and SMEs in Cambridge, and has in-house experience.

Simon Ambroz is a trainee patent attorney. He primarily specialises in prosecuting and drafting patent applications for computer-implemented inventions and helping start-ups and SMEs to grow.

 

It looks like you’re writing a letter. Would you like help?

Some of you may read those sentences and immediately remember Clippy, Microsoft’s Office Assistant. Clippy would pop up while you were typing in Microsoft Word and offer you advice on how to improve your writing. Clippy eventually retired in the early 2000s, but since then, blog writing, social media posts, and content creation have become incredibly popular. Even in the workplace, most of us communicate using emails now rather than phone calls. This is where Grammarly Inc. comes in.

In this article, we look at this AI-based business, and provide advice on whether their AI technology is patentable.

Grammarly’s technology

Grammarly identified a gap in the market in 2009 and built a successful company based on artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Grammarly (which is also a registered trademark) is a cloud-based writing assistant that checks text written in English dialects. The writing assistant reviews spelling, grammar, punctuation, and clarity in real-time, and can also check whether your writing is engaging and strikes the right tone. The AI-powered writing assistant not only identifies mistakes and other errors within your writing, but also searches for an appropriate replacement for the mistakes and errors, and provides a detailed explanation of the mistake/error. Grammarly requires you to be connected to the internet in order to work, because the AI writing assistant checks your writing against a database of mistakes and errors, as well as data collected from users.

Grammarly currently has a multi-billion dollar valuation, but has a small patent portfolio. However, size certainly isn’t everything when it comes to a patent portfolio.  Grammarly’s patent portfolio focuses on their key innovations, i.e. the core technology that underpins their business. This is important, particularly for smaller companies and start-ups with limited budgets: use your IP budget to ensure you protect the core technology. Patents provide start-ups with options for revenue generation (such as licensing, or acquisition) and collaboration (more negotiating power). If you’d like to know more about why patents can be useful for start-ups and how to make the most of a limited budget, take a look at this article.

Grammarly’s patent portfolio

Grammarly was founded in 2009, and their earliest patent application dates back to 2010. It is great to see that the company understood the importance of protecting their technology at an early stage. We explain the importance of filing patent applications sooner rather than later in this article.

The company’s patent portfolio also appears to cover various iterations of their technology. For example, the earliest patent application which has a priority date of 2010 describes using a computer-based grammar checking tool and a human proofreader. This reliance on humans to perform part of the task is unsurprising, as other companies were doing similar things at this time. An example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which used humans to perform tasks, such as query response, that computers were either unable to do or which humans could do faster.

However, it appears that Grammarly has moved away from partly relying on human intelligence, and their patent portfolio reflects this move. This is important and something innovating technology businesses should ensure, as otherwise a patent portfolio might not cover what the business is actually doing.

In 2020, Grammarly filed two patent applications that do not mention using humans to perform part of the mistake identification and correction. One of these discloses a machine learning model that can suggest synonyms to replace a word in a text sequence that also fits in the context of the text sequence. The other describes a machine learning model that has been trained to analyse digital input text sequences and produce digital output text sequences that are grammatically corrected and fluency-adjusted versions of the corresponding digital input sequences, taking into account the user’s particular native language and proficiency level.

Currently, it seems that Grammarly has only filed patent applications and obtained granted patents in the US. There may be many reasons why they have focussed on the US. For example, as the company is based in the US and because the US is a big market for this technology, they may have decided to focus on the US. In another example, since Grammarly is cloud-based, if the servers they use to perform the text analysis are based in the US, they may have filed patent applications in the US to cover the jurisdiction in which their technology is running. Another reason may be due to differences between what Patent Offices around the world consider patentable subject matter.

Is Grammarly’s technology patentable in Europe?

Generally speaking, your chance of obtaining a software patent in the US and Europe is very similar. The US and European patent offices (USPTO and EPO, respectively) have different assessment approaches, but the end result is often very similar. We explain the different approaches in this article.

Some examples of patentable AI inventions are specified in the EPO’s Guidelines for Examination: “For example, the use of a neural network in a heart-monitoring apparatus for the purpose of identifying irregular heartbeats makes a technical contribution. The classification of digital images, videos, audio or speech signals based on low-level features (e.g. edges or pixel attributes for images) are further typical technical applications of classification algorithms.” It is important to note that all of the above-mentioned examples of software/AI have “further technical effects” which go beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the program (software) and the computer (hardware) on which it is run.

Clearly, the EPO generally considers AI-based inventions to be patentable, but what is the EPO’s view on AI inventions that relate to language processing?  The EPO’s Guidelines specify that “Classifying text documents solely in respect of their textual content is however not regarded to be per se a technical purpose but a linguistic one (T 1358/09)”. This statement suggests that natural language processing inventions may not be patentable at the EPO. Accordingly, this may be one of the reasons that Grammarly has not pursued any European patents and mainly focuses on the US.

However, this does not mean that obtaining patent protection for Grammarly would be impossible in Europe. Indeed, the number of patent applications being filed for natural language processing at the EPO continues to grow.

Firstly, the patent application could focus on a technical use of the natural language processing invention, rather than just a linguistic one.

As an example, granted European patent EP3230896B1 uses a linguistic-based model to predict a complexity score of an input text in a first language, where the complexity score represents a difficulty to translate the input text from the first language into a second language. This score enables a user to modify the input text to improve the complexity score. EP3378059B1 relates to a similar scoring method, which can be used to generate audio data based on the input text. EP2387031B1 describes analysing statements to determine how confusing they would be if they were spoken and processed by a speech recognition system. It can be seen that in all these cases, the text processing is used for a technical purpose (machine translation, or text to speech conversion).

Another technical use of text processing is drug discovery – see our previous article about patenting such techniques.

Secondly, the patent application could focus on a wider system which includes technical features as well as the natural language processing.

For instance, EP3583747B1 describes an intelligent digital assistant system that comprises a microphone and a speaker. The system receives audio input, recognises speech of multiple users, and processes the speech to determine what the users are saying and to provide an appropriate response. Speech analysis is considered to be patentable by the EPO, even if the analysis uses linguistic models. It may be that speech processing using grammar models becomes more prevalent in the near-future as we increasingly use our voices to control our devices or to obtain information, and as we communicate verbally with colleagues, friends and family in different languages.

Thirdly, even if the invention is purely linguistic, it can be advantageous to use a European patent attorney to prepare your patent application and assist you with the filing and prosecution in other countries. At Appleyard Lees, we are very familiar with the patentability requirements and prosecution process in other key jurisdictions, such as the US, China and Japan, and we can prepare patent applications that are suitable for other jurisdictions. A number of our attorneys are also members of organisations that advise on patent policies, including policies around emerging technology areas such as AI.

Similarly, it may be worth first-filing your text processing patent application at the EPO. This is because it is possible to obtain a quick search and written opinion from the EPO, within around four months of filing, which can be useful to determine your subsequent patent filing strategy and to identify potentially relevant prior art.  Similarly, using the EPO as the International Searching Authority when filing a PCT application may be useful, as outlined here.

If you are innovating in the AI or machine learning space and would like to discuss how you should protect your innovation, get in touch with us. At Appleyard Lees, we have a dedicated team of patent attorneys who specialise in protecting AI inventions, and we can advise you on whether the patent route is suitable for your AI invention and your business goals.

Related posts

From Snail Mail to Streaming: The Netflix IP Story

Many of us are familiar with binge-watching TV series on Netflix, but few of us are familiar with Netflix’s vast intellectual property (IP) portfolio. We take a look at Netflix’s IP story in this article, which contains as many twists and turns as one of its original dramas.

Read More »