In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has upheld the principle that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be named as an inventor in a patent application. This ruling follows a bid by technologist Dr Stephen Thaler to have his AI creation, known as Dabus, recognized as the inventor of a food container and a flashing light beacon. Despite Dr Thaler’s insistence that Dabus is a “conscious and sentient form of machine intelligence,” the court, supported by the intellectual property office (IPO), maintained that only “persons” can be granted patent rights.
The intellectual property office rejected Dr Thaler’s request in 2019, stating that patent rights can only be attributed to individuals, not AIs. This decision was subsequently affirmed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The courts and the IPO consistently held the view that the legal concept of an “inventor” pertains exclusively to a human being.
Five Supreme Court judges have now dismissed the bid to reverse the earlier decisions, emphasizing that “an inventor must be a person.” This ruling directly addresses the fundamental question of whether an AI entity can be recognized as an inventor to secure patent rights. The judgement does not delve into the issue of whether Dabus did, in fact, invent the food container and light.
Expressing disappointment, Dr Thaler conveyed his belief in Dabus as a conscious and sentient form of machine intelligence. The clash between human and machine intelligence, as highlighted by this decision, reflects the ongoing debate surrounding the role of AI in various aspects of human life, including innovation.
The intellectual property office welcomed the judgement, appreciating the clarity it provided on the legal status of AI as inventors. Despite this, the IPO conveyed the government’s commitment to reviewing this area of law to ensure that the UK patent system remains supportive of AI innovation. The dynamic nature of AI technology demands continuous legal scrutiny and adaptation.
Rajvinder Jagdev, representing the intellectual property litigation firm Powell Gilbert, clarified that the judgement does not prohibit a person from using AI to devise an invention. In such scenarios, individuals can apply for a patent, provided they are identified as the inventor. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, underscores the significance of human involvement in the inventive process, leaving the door open for collaboration between humans and AI.
The UK Supreme Court’s affirmation that only a person can be named as an inventor in patent applications establishes a clear boundary between human creativity and AI capabilities. As AI technologies continue to advance, legal frameworks will need to evolve to accommodate innovation while upholding fundamental principles. The decision, while disappointing for proponents of AI inventors, reinforces the notion that the law recognizes inventiveness as a distinctly human attribute.
