Dr. Stephen Thaler developed DABUS (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science), an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can autonomously create patentable inventions. Thaler has filed patent applications in various jurisdictions for two inventions created by DABUS – a food container with side walls having a fractal profile, and a beacon for attracting enhanced attention for example in a search and rescue scenario[1]. In each application, Thaler listed DABUS as the sole inventor, forcing patent offices in various jurisdictions to address the issue of whether an AI system can be an inventor on a patent application. Thus far, the DABUS patent applications have found very limited success in patent offices and courts around the world. In the latest decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the US Patent Act requires an inventor to be a natural person, and consequently, an AI system cannot be an inventor on a United States patent application.[2] The DABUS applications were initially rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be a named inventor on a United States patent? No, says a federal appeals court in a decision issued earlier this month. The case, Thaler v. Vidal, arose from two patent applications filed in 2019 by Stephen Thaler, naming an AI system he calls DABUS (for "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience") as the "inventor." After the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) informed Thaler that the applications were incomplete because they did not list a human inventor, he filed a complaint in a federal district court in Virginia. In September 2021, that court ruled against Thaler, citing "the overwhelming evidence that Congress intended to limit the definition of'inventor' to natural persons."

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.

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 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that an artificial intelligence (AI) software system cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application because the Patent Act requires an "inventor" to be a natural person. Stephen Thaler develops and runs AI systems that generate patentable inventions, including a system that he calls his "Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science" (DABUS). In 2019, Thaler sought patent protection for two of DABUS's putative inventions by filing patent applications with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Thaler listed DABUS as the sole inventor on both applications. The PTO found that the patent applications lacked valid inventorship and sent a Notice of Missing Parts requesting that Thaler identify a valid inventor.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed on August 5 that only a natural person--not an artificial intelligence system--can be an inventor. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is widely applied as a tool in different technical areas, such as machine learning, image processing, and speech recognition. More complex AI technology can create new products or processes with little or no human help. If an AI system can independently create something new, can it be designated as an inventor? The Federal Circuit finally settled this issue--affirming decisions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Eastern District of Virginia that an AI system cannot be 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.

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.

A legal challenge is being prepared to overturn the Intellectual Property Office's (IPONZ) decision not to recognise a machine as an inventor. It is being led by University of Surrey law professor Ryan Abbott, who has been testing patent law around the world, including New Zealand, to see if an invention created by an artificial intelligence (AI) programme could receive a patent. The test case centres around a "creativity machine" or AI inventor programme, known as DABUS, which was developed by US-based physicist Stephen Thaler. Abbott approached Thaler about using the AI as the basis of the case and with a team of lawyers, all working pro bono, they filed patent applications in more than a dozen countries listing DABUS as the inventor of a beverage container it created. New Zealand's Assistant Commissioner of Patents rejected the initial application in January, ruling that the term "inventor" intrinsically refers to a natural person.