UK Supreme Court rules AI cannot be named as patent 'inventor' in landmark case
On Wednesday, the highest court in Britain rendered a verdict stating that, according to existing law, only a person qualifies as an inventor eligible to apply for patents.
artificial intelligence
Highlights
- The UK's highest court stated that "an inventor must be a person" under current law to apply for patents
- The decision has raised concerns about the adequacy of current patent laws in protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI
In a groundbreaking decision, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be legally recognised as an inventor for patent rights. The case, brought by U.S. technologist Dr. Stephen Thaler, challenged the rejection of his attempt to designate an AI system, named DABUS, as the inventor of two patents.
Court decision: "An inventor must be a person"
The UK's highest court, in a unanimous decision, concluded that "an inventor must be a person" under current law to apply for patents. Dr. Thaler had asserted that DABUS autonomously generated inventions, specifically a food or drink container and a light beacon. However, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected his application in 2019, stating that an AI lacks the legal status of a person.
Long-running dispute and legal standpoint
Dr. Thaler's dispute with the IPO reached the Supreme Court after being upheld by the high court and the court of appeal in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The court emphasised that the decision focused on the legal status of the inventor, not the AI's ability to create inventions. Lord Kitchin, delivering the judgment, stated that DABUS "is not a person, let alone a natural person," and, therefore, cannot be considered an inventor.
Implications for AI and patent law
The Supreme Court's ruling has broader implications for the intersection of AI and patent law. Thaler's lawyers argued that patent law does not explicitly exclude non-human inventors, but the court emphasized the need to identify a person or entity as the inventor. The decision has raised concerns about the adequacy of current patent laws in protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI.
In response to the ruling, Thaler's legal team stated that it establishes the inadequacy of UK patent law in safeguarding AI-generated inventions. The decision may spark discussions on the need for legal frameworks that address the evolving role of AI in innovation and invention.
COMMENTS 0