The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a computer scientist’s attempt to secure patents for inventions generated by his artificial intelligence system. Stephen Thaler, a U.S. computer scientist, sought to register two patents in the UK for innovations produced by his “creativity machine,” known as DABUS, reported Reuters.
The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) initially rejected Thaler’s application, asserting that under UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person or a company, not a machine. Thaler appealed the decision to the UK Supreme Court, which upheld the IPO’s refusal, emphasizing that “an inventor must be a natural person.”
Judge David Kitchin clarified in the court’s written ruling that the case did not address the broader question of whether advancements produced autonomously by AI should be patentable. Thaler’s lawyers, in response to the decision, stated that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current UK patent law in protecting AI-generated inventions and supporting industries relying on AI in technological development.
A spokesperson for the IPO welcomed the decision, acknowledging the legitimate questions surrounding the patent system’s handling of AI creations. The government plans to review this area of law in light of the evolving role of AI in innovation.
Read more: Alphabet’s AI Chatbot Bard Launches In Europe
Thaler faced a similar setback earlier this year in the United States, where the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to grant patents for inventions originating from his AI system.
Giles Parsons, a partner at Browne Jacobson law firm, commented that the Supreme Court’s ruling is currently not expected to significantly impact the patent system, as AI is considered a tool rather than an agent. He anticipates potential changes in the medium term and believes the system can adapt as needed.
Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, noted that the ruling aligns with similar decisions in courts across Europe, Australia, and the U.S., providing clarity that inventors must be natural persons. However, he emphasized that the judgment does not prohibit individuals from using AI to devise inventions, provided that a person is identified as the inventor.
In a separate case last month, London’s High Court ruled that artificial neural networks can qualify for patent protection under UK law, indicating the evolving legal landscape surrounding AI inventions.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI