UK Supreme Court concludes that AI cannot be recognized as an inventor of a patent
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot legally be named as an inventor with patent rights. The Supreme Court has held that 'under current law, to apply for a patent, the inventor must be a person.'
Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent) - uksc-2021-0201-judgment.pdf
(PDF file)
AI cannot be named as patent 'inventor', UK supreme court rules | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/20/ai-cannot-be-named-as-patent-inventor-uk-supreme-court-rules
AI cannot be patent 'inventor', UK Supreme Court rules in landmark case | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/technology/ai-cannot-be-patent-inventor-uk-supreme-court-rules-landmark-case-2023-12-20/
The issue in this case was that engineer Steven Thaler attempted to list an AI he developed as the inventor of a patent. Mr. Thaler filed a lawsuit because the UK Intellectual Property Office, which accepts patent applications, did not recognize the mention of AI, but this was dismissed by the High Court in 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down a similar decision the following year, and the Supreme Court It will be carried over to.
In the Supreme Court proceedings, the issue was not whether or not AI actually created the invention, but rather whether or not AI should be allowed to be mentioned in a patent application.
In the UK, application rules are established based on the Patents Act 1977. Thaler's lawyers argued, ``Patent law does not deny the possibility of non-human inventors, and AI should also be recognized as inventors.''
However, the Supreme Court judges unanimously rejected this, concluding that the inventor must be a natural person. In his ruling, Judge David Kitchin pointed out that ``there is no law that considers machines to be creators.''
Thaler also claimed that because he is the owner of the AI, he has the right to apply for a patent on the AI invention. However, this argument has been rejected because AI is just a machine and has no legal personality, and there is no right for such an entity to apply for a patent.
Thaler's lawyers said in a statement: 'British patent law is woefully inadequate to protect inventions produced autonomously by AI and, as a result, woefully inadequate to support industries that rely on AI. That has been proven.'
Meanwhile, the Intellectual Property Office welcomes discussions on laws related to patenting AI, adding that the government will continue to consider laws in this area.
A legal expert said of the ruling, ``AI is currently just a tool, so this ruling is appropriate. We expect the situation to change in the medium term, but the correct decision was made as a matter of law.'' 'I don't think that AI can't be used for inventions. If AI is used, and the person using it is recognized as the inventor, it would be possible to apply for a patent.'
Related Posts:
in Software, Posted by log1p_kr