The Supreme Court’s recent decision that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be legally named as an inventor for securing patent rights marks a significant moment in intellectual property law.
This ruling firmly establishes that under current UK law, an inventor must be a person. This decision has profound implications for businesses utilising AI for creative and innovative purposes.
Background of the case
The case involved Dr Stephen Thaler, who challenged the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) decision to reject his application to list an AI named DABUS as the inventor of two patents.
Dr Thaler argued that DABUS autonomously created a food or drink container and a light beacon, entitling him to rights over these inventions. However, the IPO, High Court, and Court of Appeal maintained that an AI cannot be an inventor as it is not a person.
Supreme Court’s judgment
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Dr Thaler’s case. Lord Kitchin, leading the judgment, stated that DABUS is not a person and thus cannot be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1977.
The Court also rejected the notion that Dr Thaler could claim patents based on his ownership of the AI.
Implications for businesses
This ruling highlights a significant gap in UK patent law regarding AI-generated inventions. Robert Jehan, representing Dr Thaler, expressed concerns that this legal position could harm the UK’s ambition to be a global centre for AI and data-driven innovation.
The lack of patent protection for AI-generated inventions might push industries to seek intellectual property protection outside the UK.
Challenges in innovation
Businesses relying on AI for innovation now face a dilemma. Without the ability to patent AI-generated inventions, there is a disincentive to disclose such creations. This situation could lead to a lack of control over AI-devised innovations and potentially hinder the progress of AI technology in the UK.
Government’s stance
The Government, while acknowledging the need for the patent system to support AI innovation, has decided against any legal changes to UK patent law at this stage.
It emphasises the need for any future changes to be at an international level. The Government remains committed to reviewing this area of law to ensure it supports AI innovation.
Future prospects
The Supreme Court’s decision does not address whether technical advances generated autonomously by AI should be patentable. It also leaves open the question of whether the term ‘inventor’ should include AI systems. This leaves room for future legal developments and discussions at both national and international levels.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has set a clear precedent that, under current law, AI cannot be an inventor for the purposes of patent applications.
This decision underscores the need for a re-evaluation of intellectual property laws in the age of AI.
As AI continues to evolve and play a more significant role in innovation, the legal system will need to adapt to ensure that it adequately protects and encourages advancements in this field.
If you have any questions about AI relating to IP law or would like advice on any other IP related matters, our expert team of solicitors are here to help. Contact us today for more information.