In a groundbreaking decision, the UK’s Supreme Court delivered a verdict reiterating the non-recognition of AI algorithms as inventors, marking a pivotal moment in patent law. The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s pursuit of patent registration for inventions attributed to his AI creation, DABUS.
Thaler’s endeavor to secure patent rights for DABUS-generated innovations, such as a novel food container and a flashing light beacon devised in 2019, faced initial rejection from the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The IPO’s stance rested on the premise that patents could only be attributed to human individuals or corporate entities, not AI systems.
The recent Supreme Court ruling unequivocally upheld the denial of Thaler’s appeal. Judge David Kitchin emphasized that while the case didn’t delve into the patentability of AI-generated technical advancements; patents inherently demand a “natural person” as the inventor for enforcement purposes.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
He said “technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable,” but patents can only be assigned to human creators, and the inventor must be a “natural person” for a patent to be effectively enforced.
This ruling aligns with a precedent set by the US Supreme Court, reinforcing that AI lacks the legal status to be recognized as an inventor. Intellectual property expert Rajvinder Jagdev underscored similar decisions across European courts and Australia, all underscoring the fundamental principle that inventors must be human individuals.
Thaler’s legal representatives voiced apprehensions about the ruling’s adverse effects on industry growth and AI integration. Conversely, the Supreme Court acknowledged the existing inadequacies of patent laws in safeguarding AI “inventions.” An IPO spokesperson embraced the ruling, saying it clarifies the current state of patenting related to “artificial intelligence machines.”
However, the decision prompts pertinent inquiries into the adaptation of patent systems to accommodate AI-generated creations. Giles Parsons, an IP lawyer, deemed the Supreme Court’s decision as “unsurprising” and anticipated minimal immediate impact on the patent framework. Parsons reiterated that AI algorithms remain classified as tools, not independent agents, within legal contexts.
The IPO emphasized the ongoing necessity for discussions on reshaping patent systems and intellectual property frameworks to effectively navigate the complexities arising from AI-generated innovations. It acknowledged that the current paradigm might not comprehensively address the multifaceted nature of AI-based inventions.
The ruling underscores the many issues facing the evolving AI industry – ranging from its perceived threat to civilization to the need for regulation. From the UK to the US, the authorities are still grappling with the exigencies of AI, making efforts to create unique rules for the industry complicated.
