Simone Billi

deputato eletto nella Circoscrizione Estero-Europa

Intelligenza Artificiale, Quantum Computing ed Etica Digitale: conferenza alla Camera

Roma, 10 novembre 2025 – Giovedì 13 novembre 2025, alle ore 19:00, presso la Sala Stampa di Montecitorio, si terrà il convegno dal titolo “Intelligenza Artificiale, Quantum Computing ed Etica Digitale: nuove sfide per il diritto e la cittadinanza”, che sarà trasmesso in diretta dalla WebTv della Camera dei Deputati all’indirizzo https://webtv.camera.it/conferenze_stampa.

L’iniziativa è promossa dal Comitato sugli Italiani nel Mondo, presieduto dall’On. Simone Billi, in collaborazione con Italawyers International, l’associazione internazionale di avvocati italiani attiva in 39 Paesi, guidata dall’Avv. Valeriano Drago.

“L’evento nasce con l’obiettivo di approfondire il rapporto tra innovazione tecnologica, diritto e cittadinanza, in un momento in cui l’intelligenza artificiale e le tecnologie quantistiche stanno ridefinendo le basi stesse della responsabilità, della creatività e della tutela giuridica” dichiara Simone Billi, deputato per la Circoscrizione Estero-Europa e presidente del Comitato sugli Italiani nel Mondo.

La discussione vedrà intervenire l’Avv. Valeriano Drago sugli obiettivi culturali e giuridici dell’iniziativa, l’Avv. Alessia Panella su scenari normativi e sfide regolatorie, l’’Avv. Helga Carlotta Zanotti sull’etica dell’intelligenza artificiale.

“È fondamentale che il diritto accompagni questa trasformazione garantendo etica, trasparenza e tutela dei diritti umani” dichiara Valeriano Drago.

Mio intervento per esteso:

INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE QUANTUM COMPUTING ED ETICA DIGITALE

Buongiorno, saluto e ringrazio il Presidente e avv. Valeriano Drago per l’impegno e la passione con cui porta avanti [1]Italawyers e ringrazio tutti i membri attivi della stessa Italawyers per la difesa e la promozione dell’Italianità nel mondo.

Oggi intervengo con piu cappelli: come membro onorario di Italawyers, e a livello istituzionale come Presidente del Comitato per gli Italiani nel Mondo e come Presidente dell’Intergruppo parlamentare sulla Protezione dell’Innovazione Tecnologica, che riunisce deputati e senatori impegnati nella difesa giuridica e industriale dell’innovazione italiana.

In specifico, intervengo anche col cappello di European Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator e Consulente italiano in brevetti x offrire una breve panoramica, nei tempi concordati, sulla brevettabilità delle invenzioni basate sulla ai e sulla quantum computing: un tema specialistico che rappresenta solo una parte del piu ampio quadro giuridico legato alla protezione e alla regolamentazione di queste tecnologie emergenti.

La normativa italiana ricalca sostanzialmente quella europea; mi limiterò dunque a richiamare i principi stabiliti dalla Convenzione sul brevetto Europeo:

Il principio di base è inequivocabile: un’invenzione è brevettabile solo se presenta i tre requisiti fondamentali di novità, attività inventiva e applicabilità industriale, come stabilito artt 54[2], 56[3], 57[4] EPC. Tuttavia, alcune categorie restano escluse perché considerate di natura astratta (art.52[5]): tra queste rientrano i metodi matematici, i programmi per elaboratore e i metodi per attività mentali o commerciali (Art.52.2.c). Questa esclusione, però, non è assoluta: si applica soltanto quando tali attività sono rivendicate “in quanto tali” (Art.52.3). È proprio questa espressione, apparentemente tecnica ma sostanziale, che segna il confine tra ciò che può essere protetto e ciò che resta fuori dall’ambito brevettuale.

Negli anni, l’Ufficio Europeo dei Brevetti ha costruito una giurisprudenza sempre più articolata per distinguere tra le soluzioni puramente teoriche e quelle che producono un effetto tecnico concreto.

Le Linee guida EPO affrontano questa materia sin dal 1978 nella sezione G-II, 3.3[6], dedicata ai metodi matematici, sottoposta a numerose revisioni nel corso degli anni. A seguito dell’importante decisione G 1/19[7] del EPO Board of Appeal, la disciplina è stata ulteriormente precisata: nel 2018 è stata introdotta la sezione G-II, 3.3.1[8], dedicata all’intelligenza artificiale e al machine learning, e nel 2022 la sezione G-II, 3.3.2[9], relativa alle simulazioni, alla progettazione e alla modellazione.

In breve, la Guidelines 3.3.2 individua tre principali modalità con cui si può contribuire al carattere tecnico dell’invenzione:

1. Interazione con la realtà fisica;

2. Simulazione puramente numerica, ma adattata ad un hardware specifico;

3. Uso tecnico specifico dei risultati della simulazione per una precisa applicazione tecnica.

Proprio la decisione G 1/19 ha stabilito un principio chiave: anche una simulazione digitale può essere brevettabile se è collegata a un sistema fisico reale o se è utilizzata nel controllo di un processo tecnico concreto. Viceversa, le simulazioni puramente numeriche, prive di legame con un’applicazione industriale o fisica, restano escluse dalla protezione.

In definitiva, un sistema basato sull’intelligenza artificiale o sulla quantum tecnology non è tutelabile di per sé o in quanto tale, ma può esserlo se contribuisce alla soluzione di un problema tecnico reale. Ad esempio:

  • un sistema che utilizza la AI o la QT che consente di ridurre il consumo di energia o di ottimizzare le prestazioni di un sistema informatico, a condizione che tali risultati siano oggettivamente misurabili e verificabili;
  • Sistema che utilizza la AI o la QT in una macchina per il monitoraggio del cuore che identifica problemi cardiaci specifici ha un contributo tecnico;

Non brevettabili:

  • Classificare documenti con la AI solo tramite il loro contenuto testuale non è considerato dare di per se un contributo tecnico ma solo linguistico (T1358/09).

La stessa impostazione vale per i metodi di addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale. Se l’attività è funzionale a uno scopo tecnico, essa può contribuire al carattere brevettabile dell’invenzione. In altre parole, addestrare un modello per migliorare il funzionamento di un dispositivo medico, oppure per ottimizzare la gestione delle risorse in un sistema informatico, se il miglioramento o l’ottimizzazione sono quantificabili o meglio misurabili, rientrano pienamente tra i casi ammissibili di tutela.

E’ comunque fondamentale ricordare che, anche quando riguarda l’AI o le tecnologie quantistiche, un’invenzione deve sempre soddisfare i requisiti di base di novità e attività inventiva: può quindi essere validamente depositata e valutata, ma non verrà concessa se priva di reale contributo innovativo.

In sintesi, pur trattandosi di un ambito complesso e in costante evoluzione, l’ordinamento europeo dispone già oggi di una struttura normativa chiara e coerente, capace di offrire riferimenti solidi a inventori, imprese e professionisti della proprietà industriale. Il principio guida resta immutato nel tempo: ciò che può essere brevettato deve rappresentare un contributo tecnico concreto, utile e applicabile nella realtà, e non un mero esercizio astratto dell’intelletto o del calcolo.

[1] Article 52 EPC (Patentable inventions)​: Patentable inventions… omiss…​ The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; ​(b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information. ​Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.​

[2] ​Article 54 EPC (Novelty): (1)An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. (2)The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. (3)Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art. (4)Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition, comprised in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in Article 53(c), provided that its use for any such method is not comprised in the state of the art. (5) Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall also not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition referred to in paragraph 4 for any specific use in a method referred to in Article 53(c), provided that such use is not comprised in the state of the art.

[3] Article 56 EPC (Inventive step): An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.

[4] Article 57 EPC (Industrial application): An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.

[5] Article 52 EPC (Patentable inventions): (1)European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. (2)The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a)discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b)aesthetic creations; (c)schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d)presentations of information. (3)Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

[6]  https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_ii_3_3.html

[7] https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g190001ex1

[8] Guidelines G-II, 3.3.1 (Artificial intelligence and machine learning): Artificial intelligence and machine learning are based on computational models and algorithms such as artificial neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis. Such computational models and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be “trained” using training data. However, their use does not by itself render inventions related to artificial intelligence or machine learning non-patentable, and the guidance provided in G‑II, 3.3 generally applies. This means that, if a claim of an invention related to artificial intelligence or machine learning is directed either to a method involving the use of technical means (e.g. a computer) or to a device, its subject-matter has technical character as a whole and is thus not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) or (3). In such cases, the computational models and algorithms themselves contribute to the technical character of the invention if they contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem, for example by being applied in a field of technology and/or by being adapted to a specific technical implementation. Terms such as “support vector machine”, “reasoning engine” or “neural network” may, depending on the context, merely refer to abstract models or algorithms and so do not, on their own, necessarily imply the use of a technical means. This has to be taken into account when examining whether the claimed subject-matter has technical character as a whole (Art. 52(1), (2) and (3)). Artificial intelligence and machine learning can be applied in various fields of technology. For example, using a neural network in a heart monitoring apparatus to identify 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) is another typical technical application of classification algorithms. More examples of technical purposes for which artificial intelligence and machine learning could be used are listed in G‑II, 3.3. However, classifying text documents solely according to their textual content is not considered to be per se a technical purpose but a linguistic one (T 1358/09). Similarly, classifying abstract data records or even “telecommunication network data records” without any indication that a technical use is made of the resulting classification is per se not a technical purpose, even if the classification algorithm can be considered to have valuable mathematical properties such as robustness (T 1784/06). Where a classification method serves a technical purpose, the steps of generating the training set and training the classifier may also contribute to the invention’s technical character if they help to achieve that technical purpose. The technical effect that a machine learning algorithm achieves may be readily apparent or established by explanations, mathematical proof, experimental data or the like. Mere assertions are not enough, but comprehensive proof is not required either. If the technical effect depends on particular characteristics of the training dataset used, the characteristics required to reproduce the technical effect must be disclosed unless the skilled person can determine them without undue burden using common general knowledge. However, in general, there is no need to disclose the specific training dataset itself (see also F‑III, 3 and G‑VII, 5.2).

[9] Guidelines G-II, 3.3.2 (Simulation, design or modelling): Claims directed to methods of simulation, design or modelling typically comprise features which fall under the category of mathematical methods or of methods for performing mental acts. Hence, the claimed subject-matter as a whole may fall under the exclusions from patentability in Art. 52(2)(a) and (c) and (3) (see G‑II, 3.3 and 3.5.1). However, the methods considered in this section are at least partially computer-implemented and so the claimed subject-matter as a whole is not excluded from patentability. Computer-implemented methods of simulating, designing or modelling should be examined according to the same criteria as any other computer-implemented invention (G‑VII, 5.4, G 1/19). For establishing a technical effect, it is not decisive whether the simulated system or process is technical or whether the simulation reflects technical principles underlying the simulated system and how accurately it does so.

Simulations interacting with the external physical reality

Computer-implemented simulations that comprise features representing an interaction with an external physical reality at the level of their input or output may provide a technical effect related to this interaction. A computer-implemented simulation that uses measurements as input may form part of an indirect measurement method that calculates or predicts the physical state of an existing real object and thus make a technical contribution, regardless of how the results are used.

Purely numerical simulations

A computer-implemented simulation without an input or output having a direct link with physical reality may still solve a technical problem. In such a “purely numerical” simulation, the underlying models and algorithms may contribute to the technical character of the invention by their adaptation to a specific technical implementation or by an intended technical use of the data resulting from the simulation.

Models and algorithms that do not make a contribution to the technical character of the invention form constraints that may be included in the formulation of the objective technical problem when following the COMVIK approach outlined in G‑VII, 5.4.

Specific technical implementation of a numerical simulation

The technical contribution that may be made by models or algorithms because of their adaptation to the internal functioning of the computer system or network on which they are implemented is assessed in the same way as adaptations of mathematical methods to specific technical implementations (see G‑II, 3.3).

Intended technical use of the calculated numerical output data of a numerical simulation

Calculated numerical data reflecting the physical state or behaviour of a system or process existing only as a model in a computer usually cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention, even if it adequately reflects the behaviour of the real system or process. Calculated numerical data may have a “potential technical effect”, namely the technical effect that will be produced when the data is used according to an intended technical use. Such a potential technical effect may only be considered in the assessment of inventive step if the intended technical use is either explicitly or implicitly specified in the claim. If the data resulting from a numerical simulation is specifically adapted for an intended technical use, e.g. it is control data for a technical device, its potential technical effect can be considered “implied” by the claim. The specific adaptation implies that the claim does not encompass other non-technical uses because the intended technical use is then inherent to the claimed subject-matter over substantially the whole scope of the claim (see also G‑II, 3.6.3). On the other hand, if the claim also encompasses non-technical uses of the simulation results (such as gaining scientific knowledge about a technical or natural system), the potential technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claim and therefore cannot be relied on in the assessment of inventive step.

Accuracy

Whether a simulation contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter does not depend on the quality of the underlying model or the degree to which the simulation represents reality.

However, the accuracy of a simulation is a factor that may influence an already established technical effect going beyond the mere implementation of the simulation on a computer. It may be that an alleged improvement is not achieved if the simulation is not accurate enough for its intended technical purpose. This may be taken into account when formulating the objective technical problem (Art. 56) or assessing sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83) (see F‑III, 12). Conversely, a technical effect may still be achieved by a method where certain simulation parameters are inaccurate but sufficient for the method’s intended technical use.

Design processes

The above principles equally apply where a computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process. If a computer-implemented method results merely in an abstract model of a product, system or process, e.g. a set of equations, this per se is not considered to be a technical effect, even if the modelled product, system or process is technical (T 49/99, T 42/09). For example, a logical data model for a family of product configurations has no inherent technical character, and a method merely specifying how to arrive at such a logical data model would not make a technical contribution beyond its computer-implementation. Likewise, a method merely specifying how to describe a multi-processor system in a graphical modelling environment does not make a technical contribution beyond its computer-implementation. See G‑II, 3.6.2 on information modelling as an intellectual activity.