UK's Highest Court Rules Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be Recognized as an Inventor in a Significant Patent Decision
On December 20, 2023, the UK Supreme Court made a significant ruling, stating that artificial intelligence (AI) systems are not eligible to be recognized as inventors in patent applications.
This decision aligns with similar judgments from entities like the European Patent Office and Supreme Court of the United States.
The Case of Thaler's Patent Application
The case originated with Dr. Stephen Thaler's 2018 patent applications. He made headlines by naming his AI system "DABUS" as the inventor. DABUS, a system designed to simulate human neural networks and memory, independently conceived two inventions—a novel food container and a unique flashing light.
Despite this, UK patent authorities and the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, denied these applications,stressing the need for a human inventor to be explicitly mentioned.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court was unanimous in its interpretation: the term "inventor" in the Patents Act of 1977 should apply exclusively to natural, legal persons. Given that DABUS is a machine, it doesn't meet this requirement. The Court underlined that the current legal framework only allows for natural persons to be recognized as inventors, effectively ruling out AI as an inventor.
The ruling doesn't completely shut the door on AI's involvement in patents. It indicates that while AI can't be credited as the inventor, it can play a role in the invention process. The tricky part is figuring out how much human input is needed in an invention significantly aided by AI.
The DABUS judgment emphasizes the need to reassess patent laws in light of AI advancements.
In contrast to the UK Supreme Court's stance, South Africa has acknowledged AI systems as inventors in patent grants. South Africa notably granted DABUS its first patent on the 28th of July, 2021, by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South Africa. However, South Africa's lack of a clear definition of an 'inventor' means it does not restrict the filing of patents based on this requirement. It remains uncertain whether the patent will face challenges in future.
Australia, on the other hand, witnessed a reversal in its stance. In a decision handed down on 13 April 2022, a panel of five judges of the Federal Court of Australia overturned a previous ruling, determining that an AI 'inventor,' such as DABUS, cannot be named as an inventor for patent application purposes. This decision was further upheld when, on Friday 11 November 2022, three judges of the High Court of Australia refused Stephen Thaler's application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, solidifying that an AI cannot be recognized as an inventor for patent applications.
These differing stances between nations highlight a global disparity in approaches toward AI's role in patent law, underscoring the ongoing need for international dialogue and potential revisions to accommodate the evolving landscape of AI-driven innovation.