Earlier this week, in a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court declared that only humans can be named as inventors on patent applications, not artificial intelligence. This decision emerged from a legal dispute involving Stephen Thaler, who in 2018 filed patent applications for a new food packaging design and a flashing light. Uniquely, Thaler attributed the inventions to his AI system, “DABUS,” claiming his rights to the patents stemmed from his ownership of the AI.
Initially, the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected Thaler’s applications, citing non-compliance with the requirement that an inventor must be a person. Thaler challenged this decision, asserting that he satisfied the criteria set by the 1977 patent law. However, his appeals were dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which agreed that an AI cannot be recognized as an inventor.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court didn’t address broader issues, such as the patentability of AI-generated technical innovations or the potential expansion of the term “inventor.” The court maintained that current laws explicitly require the inventor to be a natural person. Thaler’s argument, based on his ownership of DABUS, was rejected on the grounds that a patent application mandates listing a human inventor.
Thaler’s legal team expressed disappointment, stating that UK patent laws are ill-suited for AI-generated inventions. The case mirrors similar legal pursuits by Thaler in the US, where courts have also mandated human inventors for patent applications.
Tim Harris, a patent litigator, commented that the decision might have differed if Thaler had presented himself as the inventor, using DABUS as a tool. However, the court was not requested to rule on this or on the patentability of autonomous AI creations.
