Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Supreme Court AI patent ruling overview:
- Who: The UK Supreme Court ruled an AI system cannot under British law be listed as the inventor of a patent, rejecting an argument from AI researcher Stephen Thaler.
- Why: The high court determined only a “natural person” would be allowed to be listed as the inventor on a patent under British law, including the Patents Act 1977.
- Where: The case was heard by the UK Supreme Court.
The UK Supreme Court ruled against an artificial intelligence researcher earlier this week who argued an AI should be allowed to be named the inventor of a patent.
The high court determined that, under current legislation, only a “natural person” would be able to be listed as the inventor on a patent, and that doing so would go against core tenets of UK intellectual property law, reports Law360.
AI researcher Stephen Thaler, in pushing for AI patents, reportedly argued he programmed his artificial intelligence system DABUS solely with the knowledge that was required to invent it, and therefore could not be behind the system’s creations under law.
The UK Supreme Court ruled, however, that listing a non-human on a patent would violate British law — including the Patents Act 1977 — with retired Justice David Kitchin referring to
DABUS as “not a person, let alone a natural person,” reports Law360.
UK Supreme Court finds AI researchers argument for AI-owned patents ‘flawed and legally impossible’
Kitchin also reportedly said the DABUS AI system “did not devise any relevant invention,” while the court found Thaler’s argument that his AI system was an inventor to be “flawed and legally impossible.”
Thaler argued that DABUS itself had devised new inventions independent of himself, including a flashing beacon and a food container, and had asked courts and intellectual property offices in a number of jurisdictions to register patents with DABUS as the sole inventor, reports Law360.
In making its decision, the UK Supreme Court reportedly considered a trio of issues, including how the Patents Act 1977 defined the “scope and meaning” of the term “inventor” and whether or not it extended to a machine like DABUS.
The UK Intellectual Property Office had previously declined to list DABUS as a patent inventor, concluding that the system did not qualify as an inventor under the Patent Act, reports Law360.
In other AI-related news, a March 2021 report from the Trades Union Congress recommended a number of legal reforms aiming to limit an employer’s ability to use AI to hire, fire and monitor workers.
What do you think of the Supreme Court’s decision on AI patents? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert Jehan of William Powell, Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith Khan LLP and Jacob Turner of Fountain Court.
The AI patent ruling case is Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Case No. 2021/0201, in the UK Supreme Court.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
