As per Section 6 of The Patents Act, an application for a patent can be made by any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention. Further Section 2(1)(s) shows how a natural person is set out from others such as the Government under the meaning of'person'. Thus, only a natural person who is true and first to invent, who contributes his originality, technical knowledge or skill to the invention would qualify to be recognized as an inventor in India. However, this was put to test in the case of the Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience ("DABUS"), an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") system created by Dr Stephen Thaler. DABUS is trained to substitute aspects of human brain function.

The UK is set to ease data mining laws in a move designed to further boost its flourishing AI industry. We all know that data is vital to AI development. Tech giants are in an advantageous position due to either having existing large datasets or the ability to fund/pay for the data required. Most startups rely on mining data to get started. Europe has notoriously strict data laws.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that an artificial intelligence machine cannot qualify as an "inventor" for the purposes of Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act because it is not a person. Further, in determining whether a person had the right to apply for a patent under Section 7(2)(b), there was no rule of law that new intangible property produced by existing tangible property was the property of the owner of the tangible property, and certainly no rule that property in an invention created by a machine was owned by the owner of the machine. This was an appeal by the owner of an artificial intelligence machine against a decision upholding the respondent Comptroller's refusal of his patent applications in respect of inventions generated by the machine.The appellant had submitted two patent applications designating an artificial intelligence machine (DABUS), as the inventor. DABUS stands for "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience", an artificial neural system owned by Dr Thaler. The first invention was entitled "Food Container" and concerned the shape of parts of packaging for food.

Dr Thaler's international crusade for recognition of machine inventorship (which I reported on last year) is nearing the end of the line in the UK. Last week, in Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374, the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of his DABUS patent applications. In 2018, Dr Thaler, the owner of DABUS (an artificial intelligence ("AI") creativity machine) submitted two patent applications to the UKIPO naming himself as the owner and DABUS as the inventor. The UKIPO rejected his applications on the basis that, for the purposes of the Patents Act 1977 ("PA 1997"), the inventor must be a "person" (with legal personality, such as a human or a corporate entity), and considering how ownership is derived from inventorship, Dr Thaler could not be the owner in the absence of a valid inventor. In 2020, in the Court of First Instance, Marcus Smith J upheld the UKIPO's decision, concluding that section 7 PA 1997, which sets out the classes of persons to whom patents can be granted, could not be interpreted to cover non-legal persons such as machines. On that basis, he found that the UKIPO was entitled to withdraw Dr Thaler's application under section 13 PA 1997.

The UK and Australia may have made a historic pact last week, but one thing they can't agree on is whether AIs can be patent inventors. AIs are increasingly being used to come up with new ideas and there's an argument they should therefore be listed as the inventor by patent agencies. However, opponents say that patents are a statutory right and can only be granted to a person. US-based Dr Stephen Thaler, the founder of Imagination Engines, has been leading the fight to give credit to machines for their creations. Dr Thaler's AI device, DABUS, consists of neural networks and was used to invent an emergency warning light, a food container that improves grip and heat transfer, and more.

The emergence of artificial intelligence-related technology as a means of innovation has led to uncertainties for companies across industries, primarily because patent law has historically held that intellectual property rights be assigned only to humans. Now, in a landmark decision, an Australian court has set a groundbreaking precedent, deciding AI systems can be legally recognised as an inventor in patent applications, challenging a fundamental assumption in the law: that only human beings can be inventors. The AI machine called DABUS is an "artificial neural system" and its designs have set off a string of debates and court battles across the globe. Australia's Federal Court has now made the new law that "the inventor can be non-human" in the same month that South Africa became the first country to defy the status quo and award a patent recognising DABUS as an inventor. AI inventor and creator of DABUS, Stephen Thaler has been running a sutained global campaign to have DABUS recognised as an inventor for more than two years.

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.

The Australian Federal Court recently handed down its first-instance judgement in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 where the central issue considered was whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system could be an'inventor' for the purposes of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) and its corresponding regulations. The Court found that an AI system can be an inventor – where'inventor' may be construed broadly to include a'person or thing that invents'1. This decision puts Australia in the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions – for now. Given the subject-matter and controversy generated by this decision, an appeal to the Full Federal Court is almost certain. This Federal Court decision is an appeal from a Patent Office hearing where the Office rejected Australian patent application no. Interestingly, the objection to inventorship was initially raised in a formalities objection issued within a few weeks after the application was filed, and not during examination which would be years later under normal circumstances.

In a landmark decision, an Australian court has set a groundbreaking precedent, deciding artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be legally recognised as an inventor in patent applications. That might not sound like a big deal, but it challenges a fundamental assumption in the law: that only human beings can be inventors. The AI machine called DABUS is an "artificial neural system" and its designs have set off a string of debates and court battles across the globe. On Friday, Australia's Federal Court made the historic finding that "the inventor can be non-human". It came just days after South Africa became the first country to defy the status quo and award a patent recognising DABUS as an inventor. AI pioneer and creator of DABUS, Stephen Thaler, and his legal team have been waging a ferocious global campaign to have DABUS recognised as an inventor for more than two years.