Thaler's lawyers argued that the ruling demonstrates that U.K. patent law is not suitable for protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI. Thaler has also faced legal battles in the U.S., with the Supreme Court declining to hear his case and the U.S. Copyright Office refusing to copyright AI-generated artwork created by his algorithm. The issue of copyrighting AI-created materials remains complex, with different countries adopting different approaches.
Key takeaways:
- The U.K. Supreme Court has ruled that a scientist cannot patent inventions created by an AI, stating that inventors must be a human or a company.
- Computer scientist Stephen Thaler had wanted patents for two inventions he says were crafted by his AI, DABUS, but his application was denied by the country’s Intellectual Property Office.
- Thaler's attorneys argue that the ruling shows that British patent law is unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines.
- While British law explicitly states that computer-generated works are eligible for copyright protection, U.S. law is less clear, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear Thaler's case.