In a decisive ruling at the intersection of technology and law, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has firmly established that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot legally be an inventor under current patent law.
This ruling emerged from the high-profile case involving computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI model, DABUS.
AI cannot be patent 'inventor', UK Supreme Court rules in landmark case.
This ruling followed similar decisions by courts in Europe, Australia and the USA. This judgement has given certainty that inventors must be a natural person and cannot be an Inventor.#AI #IPR #technology… pic.twitter.com/QpwMdcqmAM
— Adv (Dr.) Prashant Mali (@AdvPrashantMali) December 21, 2023
The Core of the Controversy
Dr. Thaler, who attempted to patent a food container and a flashing light beacon created by his AI system, DABUS, faced a major legal hurdle. He argued that DABUS should be recognized as the inventor. However, the UK’s top judicial authority, echoing lower courts’ decisions, concluded that patent law reserves inventor status exclusively for “natural persons.” This verdict, therefore, implies that inventions attributed to AI systems like DABUS cannot be patented unless a human inventor is designated.
This decision aligns with similar rulings in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, reflecting a broad international consensus. In stark contrast, South Africa granted a patent to DABUS, primarily due to its non-stringent patent examination system, which does not delve deeply into the definition of an inventor. Concurrently, this discrepancy underscores the varying legal interpretations of AI’s role in invention across different jurisdictions.
The Debate: AI and Human Creativity
The ruling from the UK Supreme Court has reignited a global conversation about the evolving nature of invention in the AI era. Advocates like Prof. Adrian Hilton from the University of Surrey argue for the adaptation of legal systems to recognize the inventive capabilities of AI. In addition, they suggest that we are transitioning from a period where invention was solely a human endeavor to a new era where AI systems are increasingly capable of creative processes.
Prof. Adrian Hilton is giving a talk on ‘Diversity in AI' at #AISummitLondon#PeopleCentredAI @cvssp_research @UniOfSurrey https://t.co/6Vw58SgA6Z pic.twitter.com/wGfNmV6MbO
— Surrey Institute for People-Centred AI (@PeopleCentredAI) June 14, 2023
Simultaneously, legal experts like Gene Quinn advocate developing new legal frameworks or protections designed explicitly for AI-generated innovations. They argue that current patent laws tailored to human inventors may not adequately address or protect the complexities of AI-driven creations.
Implications for Future AI Innovations
This landmark decision does more than settle a legal dispute since it sets the stage for how AI-related innovations might be treated legally worldwide. Moreover, as AI technology advances and plays an increasingly important role in creative and inventive processes, the legal system faces the challenge of adapting to these changes. The decision by the UK Supreme Court serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for legal frameworks to evolve with technological advancements.
South Africa is the first country in the world to award a patent to an Artificial Intelligence-generated invention
An interlocking food and beverage container based on fractal geometry by Dabus got a patent on July 28, 2021.
Attempts to do this got denied in UK, USA and Europe.
— Africa Facts Zone (@AfricaFactsZone) August 10, 2021
The case also highlights the nuanced differences in patent law across various jurisdictions. While some countries may adopt more inclusive definitions that accommodate AI as inventors, others may uphold the traditional view that only natural persons can be inventors. This divergence might lead to varying patterns of AI-related patent filings globally, potentially influencing where AI innovations get developed and commercialized.
Adapting to the AI Age
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling is a critical moment in the broader narrative of how legal systems worldwide will continue to interpret and adapt to the rapid advancements in AI. As AI’s role in innovation becomes more pronounced, this case will likely be referenced in legal debates and legislative reforms aimed at modernizing patent law better to reflect the realities of the increasingly AI-integrated world.
and then