AI cannot be a patent inventor, top UK court rules in landmark case
Scientist loses patents bid with ruling that inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine
20 December 2023 - 15:04
byAgency Staff
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
London — A US computer scientist on Wednesday lost his bid to register patents over inventions created by his artificial intelligence system in a landmark case in Britain on whether AI can own patent rights.
Stephen Thaler wanted to be granted two patents in the UK for inventions he says were devised by his “creativity machine” called DABUS.
His attempt to register the patents was refused by Britain’s intellectual property office on the grounds that the inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine.
Thaler appealed to Britain’s supreme court, which on Wednesday unanimously rejected his appeal because under UK patent law “an inventor must be a natural person”.
“This appeal is not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable,” judge David Kitchin said in the court’s written ruling.
“Nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term inventor ought to be expanded ... to include machines powered by AI which generate new and nonobvious products and processes which may be thought to offer benefits over products and processes which are already known.”
Thaler’s lawyers said in a statement that “the judgment establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines”.
Thaler earlier this year lost a similar bid in the US, where the supreme court declined to hear a challenge to the US Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to issue patents for inventions created by his AI system.
Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, who was not involved in the case, said the UK supreme court’s ruling was not surprising.
“This decision will not, at the moment, have a significant effect on the patent system,” he said. “That’s because, for the time being, AI is a tool, not an agent.
“I do expect that will change in the medium term, but we can deal with that problem as it arises.”
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
AI cannot be a patent inventor, top UK court rules in landmark case
Scientist loses patents bid with ruling that inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine
London — A US computer scientist on Wednesday lost his bid to register patents over inventions created by his artificial intelligence system in a landmark case in Britain on whether AI can own patent rights.
Stephen Thaler wanted to be granted two patents in the UK for inventions he says were devised by his “creativity machine” called DABUS.
His attempt to register the patents was refused by Britain’s intellectual property office on the grounds that the inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine.
Thaler appealed to Britain’s supreme court, which on Wednesday unanimously rejected his appeal because under UK patent law “an inventor must be a natural person”.
“This appeal is not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable,” judge David Kitchin said in the court’s written ruling.
“Nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term inventor ought to be expanded ... to include machines powered by AI which generate new and nonobvious products and processes which may be thought to offer benefits over products and processes which are already known.”
Thaler’s lawyers said in a statement that “the judgment establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines”.
Thaler earlier this year lost a similar bid in the US, where the supreme court declined to hear a challenge to the US Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to issue patents for inventions created by his AI system.
Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, who was not involved in the case, said the UK supreme court’s ruling was not surprising.
“This decision will not, at the moment, have a significant effect on the patent system,” he said. “That’s because, for the time being, AI is a tool, not an agent.
“I do expect that will change in the medium term, but we can deal with that problem as it arises.”
Reuters
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.