AI Machine Cannot Be Called an Inventor, UK Court Rules

In an important decision, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has declared that a machine cannot be credited as the inventor of new products or ideas in a patent. This ruling addresses the important question of who, or what, can take credit for new creations.

After a challenge that began in 2018 and has been making its way through the courts, the highest court of the country unanimously dismissed the idea of labeling artificial intelligence tools as inventors.

At the core of this case are critical questions about the rights and protections to which machines should be entitled. As technology rapidly advances, especially with AI now matching or even surpassing humans in various tasks, these inquiries become more intricate.

This year’s swift technological progress is shaking up established legal frameworks in the UK and other places. Such frameworks were originally created to safeguard the rights of human inventors, according to the Financial Times.

An ‘inventor’ must be a natural person, and an AI machine cannot be called an inventor

In delivering the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday, Lord Kitchin stated, “We conclude that an ‘inventor’ must be a natural person. Only a person can devise an invention.”

This case originated from patent applications filed in 2018 by AI expert Stephen Thaler, representing Dabus, a neural network he had created. Dabus, short for “device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience,” has devised a flexible food container and a flashing light, as reported by the Financial Times.

AI is barred from patenting inventions.

The UK Supreme Court delivers a groundbreaking verdict.

The Court has determined that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be recognised as an inventor for patent rights.

The court emphasised that, according to existing law, “an… pic.twitter.com/YLgNWqXiI5

— Sam Ed (@iam_samedoho) December 20, 2023

In various fields, such as drug discovery and product design, AI is playing a crucial role in advancing the boundaries of knowledge.

Thaler contends that Dabus deserves recognition as an inventor, and consequently, he should be eligible for a patent since he owns the machine. This argument contradicts the UK Patents Act 1977, which narrowly defines inventors as “natural persons.”

Members of the US Supreme Court refused to hear Thaler’s case

The ruling poses a setback for Thaler and his collaborators, who have presented similar arguments to patent offices globally. In April, the US Supreme Court unanimously declined to review Thaler’s case, leaving lower court decisions intact and asserting that only “natural persons” are eligible for patents.

Despite this setback, the group has encountered success in other parts of the world. In South Africa, Dabus has been recognized as the inventor on a patent, and Australia’s Federal Court has affirmed that Dabus can indeed be acknowledged as an inventor.

It’s important to highlight that Lord Kitchin, who retired from the Supreme Court in September, came back to announce the judgment for a case heard earlier in the year, according to the Financial Times.