Posts Tagged: "AI inventorship"

Not long ago, Dr. Stephen Thaler, a member of the scientific community, began claiming that his artificial intelligence (AI) machine, DABUS, was a bona fide inventor. The outcome so far has been that the claim has been rejected in most jurisdictions. A notable exception is South Africa, which accepted Thaler’s patent application under “Formalities Examination” with DABUS as named inventor. The acceptance of the patent in South Africa and the evolution of the legal field opens the possibility of further assertions and challenges with respect to AI inventorship. I recently authored an article about some of the challenges presented by AI inventorship to the technological and philosophical community. The article highlights that more technological evidence is needed before claiming such inventorship. This technological evidence must be based on the burgeoning concept of “technology analysis,” that is, an analysis that is based on logico-mathematical foundations.  

Germany’s Federal Patent Court has set aside a decision by the country’s Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) that refused a patent application naming an artificial intelligence (AI) as the inventor. The decision was first rendered in November 2021 following oral argument, but the fully written opinion was only delivered March 31, and was published in German on the court’s homepage on April 19, 2022. The application was filed on October 17, 2019, and is titled “Food Container”. It named the applicant as Stephen L. Thaler and the inventor as “DABUS – The invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence.”

The England and Wales Court of Appeal has upheld lower rulings that two patent applications designating an artificial intelligence called DABUS as the inventor were deemed to be withdrawn. (Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.) However, the three judges were split, with the two patent specialists on the panel taking different views. Dr. Stephen Thaler filed two UK patent applications in October and November 2018 for a “Food Container” and “Devices And Methods For Attracting Enhanced Attention” respectively. Parallel applications have been filed in many other jurisdictions, as reported previously by IPWatchdog.

In the latest decision regarding inventions made by the DABUS artificial intelligence machine, the England & Wales High Court has upheld two decisions of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) deeming the UK patent applications to be withdrawn. In a judgment on September 21, Mr Justice Marcus Smith found that all the grounds of appeal filed by the applicant, Dr Thaler, must be dismissed. (Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat).) As previously reported by IPWatchdog, the patent applications (for a fractal container and a neural flame) have been filed in many jurisdictions. The applicant claims that they are the autonomous output of the DABUS machine. Like the UKIPO, the EPO and USPTO have published decisions refusing to accept them.

Earlier this year, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) received hundreds of submissions commenting on the Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence. Contemporaneously, the notable DABUS cases were rejected by the EPO, UKIPO, and USPTO on the ground that AI cannot be named as inventor. The uncertainty in the ownership/inventorship of AI technology could impede investment and development of AI technology. This article aims to look into the WIPO submissions and arguments for addressing AI inventorship. Considering balancing the incentive of fostering AI technology and genuine inventorship, this article suggests seeing AI as a tool, or a pet, and that requiring the applicant to disclose any AI technology involved is the better resting place.

For the past 60 years, scientists have been able to utilize artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other technological advances to “promote the general science …”. U.S. courts have increasingly come under pressure to not only allow AI-directed applications as patentable subject matter, but also from a small yet determined and growing contingency of IP professionals, to recognize the AIs themselves as the inventors. The EPO recently handed down guidance that AI could not be recognized as inventors on patent applications. The purpose of this piece is not to debate the merits of whether or not AI should be given inventor status on applications which, it has been argued, they are rightly due—nor should it be. It is important, however, to peek beyond the looking glass into a future where AI are given status in the United States that has, as of the writing of this piece, been reserved for human beings. Let’s explore a few main issues.