On 30 July 2021, the Federal Court of Australia decided that AI systems can be inventors. In a word-first determination of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents,{[2021] FCA 879, ('Thaler')}, the Honourable Justice Beach found that AI systems can be the inventors on a patent application under Australian patent law. The decision has been appealed to the Full Bench of the Federal Court, which may decide to overrule it. For now, however, the decision is binding in Australia. Read on to find out what a patent is and an overview of the decision.

Patent offices and courts around the world are being asked to tackle a similar question: can an artificial intelligence system qualify as an inventor for a patent? A test case making its way through several countries--from Saudi Arabia to Australia to Brazil--has spurred debate about advancements in artificial intelligence technology and questions about whether patent laws need to be revised to recognize machines as inventors. A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently ruled that, under current U.S. law, AI can't be listed as an inventor on a patent. The ruling was in line with what U.S., British, and EU patent officials have concluded. The push to recognize AI as an inventor comes from Ryan Abbott, a University of Surrey law professor, and Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri.

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."

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."

Quite recently, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ruled that Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can't get the credit of a legal inventor in a patent filing. The ruling has come as a response to two Patent Applications filed corresponding to a flashing light and food container, which were created by an AI-based system known as DABUS. The USPTO has presented a lot of arguments concerning the same. The first and foremost argument corresponds to the Patent Law in the US, which repeatedly refers to the patent inventors or innovators by using humanlike pronouns like'himself' and'herself' and terms like'whoever.' The team that filed the patent applications had argued by saying that the patent law's references to an inventor as an'individual' could very well be applied to machines too.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ruled that artificial intelligence systems cannot be credited as an inventor in a patent, the agency announced earlier this week. The decision came in response to two patents -- one for a food container and the other for a flashing light -- that were created by an AI system called DABUS. Among the USPTO's arguments is the fact that US patent law repeatedly refers to inventors using humanlike terms such as "whoever" and pronouns like "himself" and "herself." The group behind the applications had argued that the law's references to an inventor as an "individual" could be applied to a machine, but the USPTO said this interpretation was too broad. "Under current law, only natural persons may be named as an inventor in a patent application," the agency concluded. The patents were submitted last year by the Artificial Inventor Project.

In the decision, the UKIPO Hearing Officer, Huw Jones, citing sections 7 and 13 of the Act (The Patents Act 1977) and Rule 10 of the Rules (The Patents Rules 2007), Officer Jones said "the Office accepts that DABUS created the inventions" in the patent applications but that as it was a machine and not a natural person, it could not be regarded as an inventor. Moreover, as DABUS has no rights to the inventions, the Officer stated it is unclear how the applicant derived the rights to the inventions from DABUS: "There appears to be no law that allows for the transfer of ownership of the invention from the inventor to the owner in this case, as the inventor itself cannot hold property." Id. at p. 6. Officer Jones further noted that while he agreed inventors other than natural persons were not contemplated when the EPC was drafted, "it is settled law that an inventor cannot be a corporate body." Accordingly, since the "applicant acknowledges DABUS is an AI machine and not a human, so cannot be taken to be a'person' as required by the Act." However, the Hearing Officer also added that the case raised an important question: given that an AI machine cannot hold property rights, in what way can it be encouraged to disseminate information about an invention?

A collaborative research team claims their artificially intelligent system should be recognized as the rightful inventor of two innovative designs, in a potentially disruptive development in patent law. Patent law is complicated even at the best of times, but a new project led by researchers from the University of Surrey could make it more convoluted still. Called the Artificial Inventor Project, the initiative is "seeking intellectual property rights for the autonomous output of artificial intelligence." As BBC reports, the researchers are claiming that an artificially intelligent system named DABUS is the rightful inventor of two designs, namely a complex, fractal-like system of interlocking food containers and a rhythmic warning light for attracting extra attention. To that end, the researchers are filing patents on behalf of DABUS with the respective patent bodies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.