The UK Supreme Court ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be recognized as inventors under UK patent law, maintaining that only humans can be listed on patent applications. This decision marks the culmination of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s legal challenge, which sought to name his AI system, DABUS, as an inventor for patents on AI-generated inventions. Despite Thaler’s assertion that the owner of an AI should hold patent rights for AI-derived inventions, the Supreme Court upheld previous rulings from lower courts and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).
The court clarified that under the Patents Act 1977, an “inventor” must be a natural person. As DABUS is a machine, it cannot qualify for inventorship. Moreover, the ruling specified that the law does not grant patent rights for autonomous inventions generated by machines. The court also dismissed Thaler’s analogy comparing his situation to companies owning patents for employee-developed inventions, stating that the legislation explicitly addresses human inventors.
Patent experts at Pinsent Masons, including Mark Marfe, noted that while the case focused narrowly on interpreting sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act, it raises significant policy considerations. Marfe emphasized the importance of harmonizing patent law internationally to avoid creating legal uncertainties that could stifle innovation. He suggested that future developments in patent law might consider scenarios where AI serves as a tool assisting human inventors.
For more insights on this landmark ruling, see the analysis from the intellectual property law specialists at Pinsent Masons.
