The UK Supreme Court has upheld past rulings by denying a request to have an artificial intelligence identified as an inventor in a patent application.
Dr Stephen Thaler -- a technologist -- was aiming to have his AI, referred to as Dabus, accepted as the creator of a food container and a flashing light beacon.
In 2019, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) declined to accept this, determining that only individuals could be listed as inventors.
The High Court and Court of Appeal both affirmed the decision.
The IPO has put forth the claim, and the courts have sided with it, that only "people" can legally possess patent rights, not Artificial Intelligences.
Five Supreme Court judges have rejected an attempt to overturn a decision, ruling that, “a person must be the inventor”, and thus, Artificial Intelligence cannot be identified as an inventor in order to get a patent.
The judgement does not address the question of whether or not Dabus actually created the food container and lamp.
Dr Thaler declared his beliefs concerning Dabus as a "conscious and sentient form of machine intelligence" to the BBC in March, adding that if AI inventions cannot be safeguarded, a great many useful inventions that could improve humanity's quality of life "will become orphaned". He further remarked that without proper protection, actions of dishonesty, and even illegal activity, might be encouraged. In his opinion, society as a whole does not want these potential outcomes.
The IPO expressed their appreciation of the judgement and the clarification it gave to the BBC.
However, the government said that it would monitor the situation to make sure that the UK's patent framework assists in the development of AI innovations and the use of such technologies in the UK.
Rajvinder Jagdev, of intellectual property litigation firm Powell Gilbert, observed that the judgement does not prevent someone from utilizing AI to create an invention - it could be eligible for a patent if the individual is indicated as the inventor. He also implied that had this been the situation it was asked to analyze, the result may have been dissimilar.
Dr Thaler contended that, as the proprietor of Dabus, he was due patents for the AI's inventions; nevertheless, this was not accepted.
Diego Black of European intellectual property firm Withers and Rogers told the BBC that a different decision may have brought on a major challenge for companies working with AI software to innovate, as they may not have been the holders of the patent.
Simon Barker, of legal practice Freeths, noted the judgement posed "engaging policy issues" as to how governments could modify regulations as artificial intelligence progresses.
Debates concerning other aspects of intellectual property rights, such as copyright rights in AI-created works, also exist. Who should be attributed with the authorship of such works? Is it the programmer of the AI, the person prompting the machine, or is it the machine itself, like Dr Thaler argued is the case with Dabus?
It is anticipated by certain legal specialists that the demand for modifications to present laws will expand, as AI progresses to the point of being able to autonomously invent new notions.
The IPO acknowledged in their statement that there are appropriate inquiries on how the patent structure and other intellectual property should treat [AI] products.
In June 2022, the UK government released its reply to the consultation on Artificial Intelligence and intellectual property it had conducted.
The IPO stated that the response determined that no amendment to UK patent law is necessary for the present time, and that the opinion is shared by many that any later alteration should be conducted on a global scale. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's ruling did not override this conclusion.
Commentaires