Goto

Collaborating Authors

The Edge of Glory?: Will DABUS 'success' in South Africa and Australia be repeated in the UK? (via Passle)

#artificialintelligence

Lady Gaga sings'I'm on the edge of glory and I'm hanging on a moment of truth'. Until now, the longstanding crusade to allow inventions generated by the AI machine DABUS to be patentable under existing national patent laws across different jurisdictions had not had much success. Lawyers with the "Artificial Inventor Project" had filed patent applications around the world for DABUS' 'inventions' but received a steady stream of rejections from national IP offices and courts (for instance see our Lens posts on refusals by the UKIPO, UK High Court, EPO and USPTO). Surprisingly, DABUS has had better results in recent weeks in respect of its South African and Australian applications. Is this the edge of glory?


Federal court rules Artificial Intelligence cannot be an 'inventor' under US patent law

#artificialintelligence

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Wednesday ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) machine cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act. The action was a motion for summary judgement concerning two patent applications filed by Stephen Thaler for an AI machine called DABUS. DABUS was listed as the inventor for Neural Flame--a light beacon that flashes in a new and inventive manner to attract attention--and Fractal Container--a beverage container based on fractal geometry. Thaler's patent applications were rejected by the US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) and he challenged this refusal as "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of direction and not in accordance with the law". He filed this action seeking a declaration that a patent application should not be rejected only on grounds that there is no natural person identified as the inventor and that a patent application for an invention by AI should list the AI as the inventor when the criteria for inventorship has been fulfilled by the AI. The court rejected Thaler's contentions, holding that the definitions provided by Congress for "inventor" within the Patent Act reference an "individual" whose ordinary dictionary and statutory meaning is a natural person or a human being.


U.S. judge rejects bid for patent by AI 'inventor'

#artificialintelligence

A U.S. judge has ruled that artificial intelligence can't get a patent for its creations, ruling that such a privilege is reserved for people. District court judge Leonie Brinkema backed a decision by the U.S. patent office to turn away applications made on behalf of a "creativity machine" named DABUS. Brinkema issued a ruling saying that "the clear answer is'no'" to the question of whether an AI machine qualifies as an inventor under patent law. "As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication that might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship," Brinkema said in the ruling. "But that time has not yet arrived and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law."


US judge rejects bid for patent by AI 'inventor'

#artificialintelligence

A US judge has ruled that artificial intelligence can't get a patent for its creations, ruling that such a privilege is reserved for people. District court judge Leonie Brinkema backed a decision by the US patent office to turn away applications made on behalf of a "creativity machine" named DABUS. Brinkema issued a ruling on Thursday saying that "the clear answer is'no'" to the question of whether an AI machine qualifies as an inventor under patent law. "As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication that might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship," Brinkema said in the ruling. "But that time has not yet arrived and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law."


Can Artificial Intelligence be an Inventor under Patent Law?

#artificialintelligence

In this era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, advances in artificial intelligence ("AI") has resulted in AI capable of generating inventions that are novel and inventive. The question becomes whether these AI generated inventions can be protected under the current patent law framework. A recent development in Australian jurisprudence takes a step toward clarifying the applicability of patent law on AI generated inventions. The Federal Court of Australia recently held in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2012] FC 879 ("the Thaler case") that an AI system can be named as an inventor in a patent application. After a brief introduction on basic concepts underlying patent law and AI, this article will discuss the Thaler case followed by an analysis on the Malaysian perspective.