top of page

UK Court Rules AI Cannot Be Cited as an Inventor in Patent Dispute

Lanon Wee

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court confirmed that earlier judicial rulings were correct, maintaining that a patent inventor must be an actual person, not a computer powered by artificial intelligence. This followed a five-year contention proposed by Stephen Thaler, who listed his AI system, "DABUS," as the inventor of two products covered in a patent application. His claim was based on his ownership of "DABUS." The U.K.'s highest court has ruled Wednesday that Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be listed as the inventor on a patent application. This decision is likely to have a major impact as AI tools become more prevalent.Stephen Thaler initiated the case by filing two patent applications in 2018, one for a food packaging shape and the other for a type of flashing light. He stated his ownership rights as "ownership of the creativity machine 'DABUS'" and named his AI machine as the inventor instead of himself.The U.K. Intellectual Property Office rejected his submissions, noting they failed to comply with patent regulations that require a person to be listed as the inventor and an explanation of how his rights originate from that person.Thaler then appealed the decision and maintained he was compliant with the 1977 patent legislation, but his argument was ultimately denied by the High Court and Court of Appeal due to AI not being allowed to be listed as an inventor.The Supreme Court made it clear in their judgement Wednesday that they are not ruling on the broad question of whether or not technical advances created using AI-powered tools and machines should be patentable, or whether the definition of the term "inventor" should be expanded. The Supreme Court found that the inventor listed in patent applications must be a "natural person" and thus could not accept Thaler's claim of obtaining patents for inventions created by DABUS. His lawyers said in a statement to Reuters that this confirms that UK patent law is incompatible with inventions made autonomously by AI machines. Thaler has also had the same results in US courts, which require patents to list human inventors. Osborne Clarke patent litigator Tim Harris commented that although AI has made impressive advances, the Patents Act demands that the inventor is a natural person. He also highlighted that the Court was not asked to decide if inventions generated by autonomous AI should be patentable.

0 comments

Comments


We help clients solve critical operational, business & financial issues using innovative technologies such as Web3 & Blockchain.

Address:

20 CECIL STREET, #05-03, PLUS, Singapore 049705

2023 Intric Technologies Pte Ltd

bottom of page