In a monumental decision, the UK Supreme Court recently ruled that Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot be named as an inventor in a patent application. This ruling stemmed from the efforts of Dr. Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who wanted to attribute patents for a food container and a flashing light beacon to his AI chatbot, Dabus. Although his application was initially rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office in 2019, Thaler persevered and elevated his case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s judgment echoes the IPO’s stance that “only a person can be named as an inventor”. This ruling follows previous High Court and Court of Appeal judgments, and has been welcomed by the IPO for its clarity.
Dr. Thaler has expressed his concerns to the BBC about the implications of this decision, as it could encourage “acts of dishonesty, maybe even criminality”, adding that “society at large doesn’t want these things to happen”. He believes that if AI inventions cannot be protected, many valuable innovations benefitting humanity will become orphaned.
While this ruling might suit current generations of AI, it will undoubtedly change as the technology becomes more autonomous. Legal expert Rajvinder Jagdev from Powell Gilbert clarified the judgment, suggesting that the ruling doesn’t entirely exclude AI’s involvement in the invention process. It is possible for a person to use an AI to devise an invention and then apply for a patent, provided that person is identified as the inventor.
This reflects a human-centric approach to inventorship, acknowledging AI as a tool rather than an independent creator. However, other perspectives raise the question of who should be considered the creator – the programmer of the AI or the user who prompts the machine? What if an AI, like Dabus, functions autonomously to the extent that it could be seen as the ‘creator’ itself?
When AI models become capable of autonomous creativity, though defining that will be difficult, intellectual property law will likely be rechallenged. Simon Barker, an intellectual property partner from law firm Freeths, spoke of this perspective, emphasizing the need to understand who should be credited for a creation in the AI age.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a milestone decision for the AI industry, providing clarity on the question of inventorship. It is also a reminder that, as AI technology advances, the interpretation of intellectual property law must evolve to support innovation and creativity in the age of AI.
