The UK Supreme Court has ruled that only humans can be considered inventors and own patents, excluding artificial intelligence (AI). The decision came in response to technologist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to have his AI bot, named DABUS, recognized as the owner of two patents it helped design. The court concluded that an inventor must be a person, upholding the long-established principle that intellectual property rights belong solely to humans.
Thaler’s bid for a patent on behalf of the AI bot had previously been rejected by patent offices in the United States, UK, Europe, and China. In the US, he even challenged the denials in court, but a federal court ruled in August 2022 that inventors must be natural persons, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case in April 2023.
The US Patent and Trademark Office did not comment on the UK Supreme Court’s decision but highlighted that President Joe Biden’s executive order on AI, issued in October, called for the publication of guidance regarding the use of AI in the inventive process, including the topic of inventorship.
The uniqueness of this case can be likened to the copyright battles in the 2010s over whether an animal could own the rights to an image. In 2011, a macaque took a selfie with a wildlife photographer’s camera, leading to a legal dispute over ownership. Ultimately, a judge declared in 2016 that copyright law does not extend to animals, thereby dismissing the case brought forth by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Although the UK Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent for AI’s exclusion from patent ownership, the question of AI rights remains uncertain. Stephen Thaler has not disclosed his next steps, leaving the future of his campaign for AI rights in limbo.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Related to the Above News
What was the ruling of the UK Supreme Court regarding AI and patent ownership?
The UK Supreme Court ruled that only humans can be considered inventors and own patents, excluding artificial intelligence (AI). The court upheld the principle that intellectual property rights belong solely to humans.
Who was involved in this case?
Technologist Stephen Thaler brought the case to have his AI bot, named DABUS, recognized as the owner of two patents it helped design. The court's ruling denied Thaler's bid for the AI bot to be considered the inventor and owner of the patents.
Has this case been brought to court in other countries?
Yes, Thaler's bid for a patent on behalf of the AI bot was previously rejected by patent offices in the United States, UK, Europe, and China. In the US, he even challenged the denials in court, but a federal court ruled in August 2022 that inventors must be natural persons.
Did the US Patent and Trademark Office comment on the UK Supreme Court's decision?
The US Patent and Trademark Office did not comment on the UK Supreme Court's decision. However, they highlighted that President Joe Biden's executive order on AI called for the publication of guidance regarding the use of AI in the inventive process, including the topic of inventorship.
How does this case compare to the copyright battles over animal ownership?
This case can be likened to the copyright battles in the 2010s over whether an animal could own the rights to an image. In that case, a macaque took a selfie with a wildlife photographer's camera, leading to a legal dispute over ownership. Ultimately, a judge declared that copyright law does not extend to animals.
What does this ruling mean for AI rights?
The ruling sets a precedent for the exclusion of AI from patent ownership. However, the question of AI rights, including intellectual property rights, remains uncertain. Stephen Thaler, the technologist behind the AI bot, has not disclosed his next steps, leaving the future of his campaign for AI rights in limbo.
Please note that the FAQs provided on this page are based on the news article published. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it is always recommended to consult relevant authorities or professionals before making any decisions or taking action based on the FAQs or the news article.
