AI may or may not take people's jobs in years to come, but in the meantime, there's one thing they cannot obtain: patents. Dr. Stephen Thaler has spent years trying to get patents for two inventions created by his AI "creativity machine" DABUS. Now, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court has rejected his appeal to approve these patents when listing DABUS as the inventor, Reuters reports. The court's rationale stems from a provision in UK patent law that states, "an inventor must be a natural person." The ruling stipulated that the appeal was unconcerned with whether this should change in the future. "The judgment establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines," Thaler's lawyers said in a statement.

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be an inventor? Stephen Thaler recently submitted two patent applications for which an artificial intelligence system named "DABUS" was listed as the sole inventor. Specifically, the first application was directed to a food or beverage container that facilitates stacking.1 The second application was directed to a light device including a neural flame that serves as a signal beacon for human detection.2 The USPTO denied the patent applications for failing to list any human as an inventor.

The Patent Act requires an "inventor" to be a natural person, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said, rejecting computer scientist Stephen Thaler's bid for patents on two inventions he said his DABUS system created. Thaler said in an email Friday that DABUS, which stands for "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience," is "natural and sentient." His attorney Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan said the decision "ignores the purpose of the Patent Act" and has "real negative social consequences." He said they plan to appeal. The US Patent and Trademark Office declined to comment on the decision.

Thaler had asked for patents on behalf of his AI system Court affirms ruling that patent'inventor' must be human being Court affirms ruling that patent'inventor' must be human being The Patent Act requires an "inventor" to be a natural person, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said, rejecting computer scientist Stephen Thaler's bid for patents on two inventions he said his DABUS system created. Thaler said in an email Friday that DABUS, which stands for "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience," is "natural and sentient." His attorney Ryan Abbott of Brown Neri Smith & Khan said the decision "ignores the purpose of the Patent Act" and has "real negative social consequences." He said they plan to appeal. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declined to comment on the decision.

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.

Add the United Kingdom to the list of countries that says an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine." The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application.

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.

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.

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.