The Supreme Court upheld the IPO's decision, stating that DABUS was not an inventor of any new product or process described in the patent applications, as it is not a person and did not devise any relevant invention. The court also rejected Thaler's argument that he was entitled to apply for patents for DABUS inventions on the basis that he was the AI’s owner. The case has brought attention to the legal implications of AI developments and their potential impact on various sectors.
Key takeaways:
- The UK supreme court has ruled that artificial intelligence cannot be legally named as an inventor to secure patent rights, stating that "an inventor must be a person" under current law.
- The ruling was made in response to a case brought by US technologist Dr Stephen Thaler, who attempted to list an AI he created, named DABUS, as the inventor for two patents.
- The court upheld a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) that Thaler was unable to officially register DABUS as the inventor because it was not a person.
- The court also rejected Thaler's argument that he was entitled to apply for patents for DABUS inventions on the basis that he was the AI's owner, stating that DABUS was "a machine with no legal personality".