AI can’t patent innovations, UK Supreme Court confirms

The UK Supreme Court has upheld earlier selections in rejecting a bid to permit a man-made intelligence to be named as an inventor in a patent utility.

Technologist Dr Stephen Thaler had sought to have his AI, referred to as Dabus, recognised because the inventor of a meals container and a flashing gentle beacon.

But in 2019, the mental property workplace (IPO) rejected this, saying solely an individual might be named as an inventor.

The choice was then backed by each the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The IPO has argued, and courts have supported the view, that solely “persons” can have patent rights, not AIs.

Now 5 Supreme Court judges have dismissed a bid to reverse these selections, concluding that “an inventor must be a person”, and that an AI can’t be named as an inventor to safe patent rights.

The judgement doesn’t take care of the problem of whether or not Dabus did the truth is invent the meals container and lightweight.

Dr Thaler, who believes that Dabus is a “conscious and sentient form of machine intelligence”, advised the BBC in March that if AI innovations can’t be protected, “many valuable innovations benefitting humanity will become orphaned”. He added that, “acts of dishonesty, maybe even criminality will be encouraged. I don’t think society at large wants these things to happen”.

The IPO advised the BBC it welcomed the judgement and the clarification it supplied.

But it added that “the government will nevertheless keep this area of law under review to ensure that the UK patent system supports AI innovation and the use of AI in the UK”.

Rajvinder Jagdev, of specialist mental property litigation agency Powell Gilbert, mentioned: “The judgement does not preclude a person using an AI to devise an invention – in such a scenario, it would be possible to apply for a patent, provided that person is identified as the inventor. The judgement alludes that had this been the scenario it had been asked to consider, the outcome may have been different.”

Dr Thaler additionally argued that he was entitled to patents for Dabus innovations because the AI’s proprietor, however this was rejected.

A unique choice may have triggered “headaches for companies using [AI] software to innovate as they may not be the owner of the patent”, Diego Black, from European mental property agency Withers and Rogers, advised the BBC.

Simon Barker, of regulation agency Freeths, mentioned the judgement raised “interesting policy questions” about how governments may look to vary legal guidelines sooner or later as AI advances.

“There are similar debates in other areas of intellectual property rights too. Copyright in AI-generated works, for example. Is the programmer of the AI the creator, or the user who is responsible for prompting the machine? And what if it really is just the machine itself, like Dr Thaler claimed of Dabus?”

Some authorized consultants count on stress for modifications to current legal guidelines to develop, as AIs turn out to be more and more able to autonomously producing novel concepts.

In its assertion, the IPO mentioned it recognised “that there are legitimate questions as to how the patent system and indeed intellectual property more broadly should handle [AI] creations”.

In June 2022, the UK authorities revealed a response to its session on AI and mental property.

“The response concluded that there should be no legal change to UK patent law now, and noted that many share the view that any future change would need to be at an international level. The decision of the Supreme Court does not alter that conclusion,” the IPO wrote.