LI Network
Published on: December 22, 2023 at 12:55 IST
In a groundbreaking case in Britain, a U.S. computer scientist, Stephen Thaler, lost his attempt to secure patents for inventions created by his artificial intelligence system.
Thaler sought two patents in the UK for creations generated by his “creativity machine,” DABUS. However, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office rejected the application, asserting that the inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine.
Thaler appealed to the UK’s Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed his appeal, citing UK patent law that stipulates “an inventor must be a natural person.”
Judge David Kitchin clarified in the court’s written ruling that the appeal did not address broader questions about whether advancements produced by AI-powered machines should be patentable. It also did not consider expanding the definition of ‘inventor’ to include AI-driven machines that generate innovative products and processes.
Thaler’s legal team released a statement, contending that “the judgment establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines.”
Earlier this year, Thaler faced a similar outcome in the United States, where the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to grant patents for inventions created by his AI system.
Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, noted that the UK Supreme Court’s decision was expected. He mentioned that, for now, AI is considered a tool rather than an agent, and any potential changes can be addressed as the issue evolves.
