In a groundbreaking case, a U.S. computer scientist, Stephen Thaler, lost his attempt to get patents for inventions created by his AI system named DABUS in the UK. The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected the patent registration, stating that an inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine.
 |
| (Image: Google) |
Thaler appealed to the UK’s Supreme Court, but they unanimously rejected his appeal, affirming that, according to UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person. However, the court clarified that the case was not about whether AI-generated technical advances should be patentable.
Thaler’s lawyers expressed concerns, stating that the ruling shows that current UK patent law is not suitable for protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines, which could impact industries relying on AI for new technologies.
The IPO welcomed the decision, acknowledging the legitimate questions about how the patent system should handle creations from AI machines. They assured that the government would keep this area of law under review.
Earlier this year, Thaler faced a similar defeat in the United States, where the Supreme Court declined to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to issue patents for AI-generated inventions.
Legal experts note that the UK Supreme Court’s decision is not surprising, emphasizing that, for now, AI is considered a tool, not an agent. They expect changes in the future but believe the current patent system can adapt.
In a related case last month, London’s High Court ruled that artificial neural networks can indeed receive patent protection under UK law. The debate over AI and patents continues, posing questions about the role of AI in inventing and the legal protection it should receive.
.webp)
