In a groundbreaking decision on December 20, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler, who sought to have his artificial intelligence (AI) model, DABUS, recognized as the inventor of two newly patented products. This ruling reaffirms earlier decisions by the UK Court of Appeal and the UK High Court, setting a precedent for the limitations of AI in the realm of patent law.
The Legal Battle:
Dr. Thaler’s legal journey began in October 2018 when he filed two patent applications for a food container and a flashing light beacon. However, his attempt to have DABUS listed as the inventor faced immediate rejection from the UK Intellectual Property Office in August 2019. Undeterred, Thaler pursued legal proceedings to appeal the decision, leading to the recent judgment by the UK Supreme Court.
The Court’s Verdict:
The core of the court’s decision rested on the requirement that a “natural person” must be identified as the inventor of a patent. The court emphasized that DABUS, as an AI, lacks personhood, making it ineligible to be recognized as the inventor. Despite Thaler’s argument that he invented DABUS, which subsequently created the patented products independently, the court remained steadfast in its interpretation of the Patent Act 1977.
The Legal Basis:
Citing the Patent Act 1977, the lower UK courts consistently rejected Thaler’s claim, asserting that only a person can hold patent rights. The Court of Appeals, in a ruling in September 2021, stated, “A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person.” This interpretation underscores the legal principle that machines cannot possess the rights associated with patents.
Global Attempts and Limited Precedent:
Thaler’s quest to have DABUS recognized as an inventor extended beyond the UK, as he sought patent approvals in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Remarkably, South Africa approved DABUS in July 2021, marking a departure from decisions in other jurisdictions. Despite the global rejections, the UK Supreme Court clarified that its ruling does not establish a binding precedent for future cases, emphasizing that it does not introduce new grounds for refusing patent applications.
Conclusion:
The UK Supreme Court’s decision not only solidifies the legal stance that patents are exclusive to human inventors but also highlights the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding AI rights and responsibilities. As technology continues to advance, legal frameworks will likely evolve to address the intricacies of AI in innovation and intellectual property. The case serves as a pivotal moment in defining the boundaries of AI contributions within the current patent landscape, with potential implications for future legal considerations worldwide.
