With the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence technology, how are AI-generated inventions recognised when it comes to patents? Innovation funding and Patent Box experts ABGI UK have recently looked into where inventions created by artificial intelligence (AI) systems currently stand in regard to intellectual property, and how potential changes will affect U.K. businesses. The output has been shared with Digital Journal. One important point that arises from AI, is that as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly advanced, how is AI-generated innovation considered when it comes to intellectual property? The issue is perhaps more pertinent than ever following the case earlier this year of Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs.

We are excited to bring Transform 2022 back in-person July 19 and virtually July 20 - 28. Join AI and data leaders for insightful talks and exciting networking opportunities. Can artificial intelligence (AI) be legally listed as an inventor? After all, if AI can legally invent products, the number of patents on drug-discovery tools will shoot up fast. The issue is currently before a United States court. The U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments on that question again last week, and the ruling could affect the pace of AI technology development, particularly within the pharmaceutical and life science industries.

In 2020, a machine-learning algorithm helped researchers to develop a potent antibiotic that works against many pathogens (see Nature https://doi.org/ggm2p4; Artificial intelligence (AI) is also being used to aid vaccine development, drug design, materials discovery, space technology and ship design. Within a few years, numerous inventions could involve AI. This is creating one of the biggest threats patent systems have faced. Patent law is based on the assumption that inventors are human; it currently struggles to deal with an inventor that is a machine.

Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As "Inventor," discuss recent inventorship issues surrounding AI and its implications for life sciences innovations. Continuing our series, we now look at the appeal recently filed by Stephen Thaler ("Thaler") in his quest to obtain a patent for an invention created by AI in the absence of a traditional human inventor. As we previously reported, on September 3, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that an AI machine cannot qualify as an "inventor" under the Patent Act, in a case that Thaler filed seeking, among other things, an order compelling the USPTO to reinstate his patent applications. Those patent applications name an AI system called "Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience" aka "DABUS," as the sole inventor. Thaler, who developed DABUS, remains the owner of any patent rights stemming from these applications.

As artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role in the R&D process, the premise that invention is a uniquely human characteristic is being challenged. Patent offices and courts around the world have recently been grappling with the question of whether an AI system can be the inventor of a patent. This has been prompted by Dr. Stephen Thaler's applications to designate his AI system (known as'DABUS') as the inventor of patents filed in multiple jurisdictions. Most recently, the appeal board of the European Patent Office (EPO) refused Dr. Thaler's patent applications because there was no valid inventor. Dr. Thaler, as part of the Artificial Inventor Project, is pursuing parallel patent applications across over fifteen jurisdictions which designate his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor.

It may be smart, but it's not that clever. Artificial intelligence is nothing without human input. The algorithms that drive AI rely on the expertise of programmers and it's still no more than a tool – albeit a powerful one – that scientists and engineers can use to solve problems. Yet this is not to say that AI isn't the fastest-growing deep technology in the world, with the potential to transform people's lives and boost nations' economies. Facilitating AI innovation has even become a priority for the UK government, as laid out in the National AI Strategy it published in September.

It may be smart, but it's not that clever. Artificial intelligence is nothing without human input. The algorithms that drive AI rely on the expertise of programmers and it's still no more than a tool – albeit a powerful one – that scientists and engineers can use to solve problems. Yet this is not to say that AI isn't the fastest-growing deep technology in the world, with the potential to transform people's lives and boost nations' economies. Facilitating AI innovation has even become a priority for the UK government, as laid out in the National AI Strategy it published in September.

South Africa recently became what is believed to be the first country in the world to award a patent to an invention by an Artificial Intelligence (AI). An interlocking food and beverage container based on fractal geometry has been awarded a patent by South Africa's Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). Confirmation of the patent was published in the commission's journal on 28 July. But unlike the hundreds of patents listed in the CIPC's latest journal, this container was not conceptualised by a human. The patent identifies Dabus – the Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience – as the inventor.

Most of us know that DATA, the beloved android from Star Trek, The Next Generation, is an artificial intelligence (AI) life form from the distant future with a high capacity to problem solve and innovate. But, if DATA were present today and invented a new technology, could he be an inventor on a patent for his invention? The question of whether AI can legally be an inventor on a patent was recently addressed by the European Patent Office (EPO) and The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The same question is still being evaluated by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) along with solicitation for comments to the patent community. A group from the University of Surrey, in the United Kingdom (UK), recently challenged the definition of "inventor" in Europe and the United States by filing two separate patent applications designating an AI entity as an inventor.