Join 34,000+ Traders & Investors by getting our FREE weekly Sunday Cheat Sheet email. Get key market news and events before everyone else. Click Here to See if you Qualify.
In a groundbreaking decision, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against a U.S. computer scientist’s attempt to register patents for inventions purportedly created by his artificial intelligence system. The case, which revolves around the question of whether AI can be considered an inventor with patent rights, has significant implications for the evolving landscape of intellectual property law.
Stephen Thaler sought to secure two patents in the UK for inventions attributed to his “creativity machine,” known as DABUS. The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) initially rejected the patent applications, asserting that an inventor must be a human or a legal entity, rather than a machine. Thaler subsequently appealed to the highest court in the UK.
In the written ruling, Judge David Kitchin clarified that the case did not address the broader question of whether advancements generated autonomously by AI should be patentable. Instead, the court focused on the existing patent law, affirming that, under current UK legislation, “an inventor must be a natural person.”
Thaler’s legal team expressed disappointment, contending that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current patent law in protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines. They argued that the decision has far-reaching consequences for industries relying on AI in the development of new technologies.
A spokesperson for the IPO welcomed the decision, emphasizing the clarification it provides regarding the law’s stance on patenting AI-created inventions.
However, they acknowledged “legitimate questions” regarding how the patent system should handle creations of artificial intelligence, hinting at potential future legislative reviews.
Giles Parsons, a partner at Browne Jacobson, a law firm not involved in the case, remarked that the decision, while not immediately impactful, draws attention to the evolving role of AI as a tool and raises questions about its potential agency in the medium term.
Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, noted that the ruling does not preclude individuals from using AI to devise inventions.
In such cases, a patent application would be possible, provided a natural person is identified as the inventor.
This landmark decision follows similar rulings in Europe, Australia, and the U.S., providing clarity on the requirement for inventors to be natural persons.
In a separate case last month, London’s High Court ruled that artificial neural networks can attract patent protection under UK law, further contributing to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding AI and intellectual property.
This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal
While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.