On December 20, 2023, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, determining that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be recognized as inventors under UK patent law. This decision was unanimous, reinforcing the stipulation that an inventor, as per the Patents Act 1977, must be a natural person.
This verdict marks the culmination of a prolonged legal battle led by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who had filed two patent applications for inventions autonomously created by an AI known as DABUS. Dr. Thaler, the owner, creator, and user of DABUS, argued that the AI should be credited as the inventor of a food container and a light beacon. However, the court found that the definition of “inventor” under the Patents Act 1977 necessitates a human inventor, thereby excluding AI from this classification.
The court’s reasoning centered on the interpretation of the term “inventor” within the legislative framework of the Patents Act 1977. The Act mandates that an inventor must be a natural person, a criterion that an AI system fails to meet. Consequently, the court ruled that any invention generated autonomously by an AI could not fulfill the statutory requirements for patent application.
Moreover, the court clarified that the human owner of an AI system does not have the right to apply for a patent solely based on ownership of the machine that generated the invention. This position aligns with similar rulings in the United States and the European Union, where respective patent offices also concluded that a natural person is required to be named as the inventor on patent applications. Dr. Thaler’s attempts to secure patents for DABUS’s inventions in these jurisdictions were similarly unsuccessful.
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the current legal perspective that AI serves as a tool rather than an autonomous inventor. However, the court acknowledged the evolving nature of AI and hinted that legislative changes might be necessary to address the increasing role of AI in innovation. The judgment explicitly refrained from addressing broader questions regarding the patentability of inventions autonomously generated by AI or the potential expansion of the term “inventor” to include AI systems.
Looking ahead, it seems likely that discussions and consultations on adapting the UK patent system to accommodate AI advancements will intensify. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has previously concluded that existing patent rules are adequate to protect AI-assisted inventions, but rapid advancements in AI technology may prompt legislative updates to encourage innovation and ensure legal clarity.
The ruling in Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks serves as a critical reference point in the ongoing discourse about the role of AI in intellectual property law. While the decision reaffirms the status quo, it also opens the door for future policy considerations and potential reforms. As AI continues to evolve and its applications expand, the legal landscape will likely need to adapt to address new challenges and opportunities presented by AI-generated innovations.
For those interested in further exploring the intersection of AI and intellectual property, resources such as webinars and specialized content platforms are available. These resources offer valuable insights into the legal challenges posed by AI and the evolving dynamics of intellectual property law in the context of technological advancements.
