UK Supreme Court rejects AI as inventor in patent case

This judgement reaffirms the stance that only human beings, not AI, are eligible to hold patent rights.

Dr Stephen Thaler, a technologist, had been advocating for his AI creation, Dabus, to be acknowledged as the inventor of two products: a novel food container and a flashing light beacon. However, in 2019, this proposition was initially declined by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), stating that inventorship is exclusively a human attribute. This stance was subsequently endorsed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court's panel of five judges echoed these sentiments, ruling unequivocally that "an inventor must be a person". This significant judgement leaves unanswered the question of whether Dabus actually originated the inventions in question.

Expressing his disappointment, Dr Thaler, who contends that Dabus embodies a "conscious and sentient" form of machine intelligence, underscored the persisting tension between human and machine creativity. According to the BBC, the IPO welcomed the judgement for its clarity, while also acknowledging the need for continuous assessment of the law in the context of AI innovation.

Rajvinder Jagdev, from Powell Gilbert, a specialist in intellectual property litigation, clarified that the judgement does not negate the possibility of AI-assisted human invention, where the human would be recognised as the inventor.

Dr Thaler's argument extended to claiming patents for Dabus' inventions as its owner, but this too was refuted. Diego Black, from Withers and Rogers, highlighted that a different ruling could have complicated patent ownership issues for companies utilising AI in innovation.

Simon Barker, from law firm Freeths, and Professor Ryan Abbott of the University of Surrey, who represented Dr Thaler, emphasised that the decision raises critical policy questions. The debate extends to other intellectual property domains, including copyright laws for AI-generated works. The judgement implies that AI, in the current legal framework, is regarded merely as an advanced tool in the inventive process.

Legal experts anticipate increasing pressure to amend existing laws as AI capabilities in autonomous idea generation expand. The IPO, recognising the legitimacy of these questions, has stated that any future legal alterations should likely occur at an international level. In June 2022, the UK government, responding to a consultation on AI and intellectual property, concluded that no immediate legal changes are necessary, a position unaltered by the Supreme Court's ruling.