UK Court Ruling Smacks Down Claims of ‘AI as Inventor’

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be named as an inventor of patents. This groundbreaking judgment, handed down on December 20, 2023, lends further fuel to the fire when it comes to the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights. As countries grapple to keep pace with rapid technological advancements, legal challenges surrounding AI are becoming increasingly complex. 

DABUS: Original Creator or Just Another Tool?

The case in question centered around United States computer scientist Stephen Thaler and his ‘Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’ machine, or DABUS. In 2019, his DABUS system ‘created’ a type of food container and flashing light beacon, which Thaler wished to register as patents with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO denied his claim and his subsequent appeal, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case when he attempted to push it up the legal ladder. When Thaler attempted to register DABUS as an inventor in the UK, the country’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected the claim as well on the basis that only humans or a company can be a registered inventor. December’s decision by the UK Supreme Court upheld this ruling. 

One of the key aspects of the ruling is its reinforcement of the traditional interpretation of what constitutes an ‘inventor.’ In the court’s ruling, Judge David Kitchin maintained that no other ruling would be legally possible, as there is no law on the books in the UK that allows a machine to be defined as a creator. Historically, an inventor has been a human being who conceives an idea and puts it into practice. However, the advent of AI has now begun to blur this interpretation, leading to what is rapidly becoming a legal quagmire. The court’s ruling underscored the importance of human intellect and creativity in the inventive process, concluding that AI lacks the legally-defined intuitive personality required to be named as an inventor. 

Moving Faster Than the Laws that Bind It

This decision comes at a time when nations are scrambling to update their legal frameworks to accommodate the ever-evolving field of artificial intelligence. As technology races ahead, the law has found itself playing catch-up of late, resulting in a myriad of legal challenges similar to Stephen Thaler’s DABUS system and its ‘creations.’ The UK ruling sheds light on the urgent need for comprehensive and adaptive legal frameworks across the world to address the complexities posed by AI in the realm of intellectual property. 

Indeed, the implications of this ruling are not limited to the UK; they reverberate globally. Intellectual property systems worldwide are currently grappling with the question of whether inventions should – or even could – be attributed to non-human entities. The legal community is now faced with the daunting task of reconciling centuries-old legal principles with the unprecedented capabilities of AI that could never have been anticipated when the original laws were drawn up. 

AI’s Capacity for Innovation: A Double-Edged Sword

One of the underlying concerns with this and similar rulings for proponents of AI inventorship is the potential stifling of innovation. AI has demonstrated its ability to generate novel ideas and solutions autonomously, with little (if any) nudging by a human partner. This unavoidably raises questions about the need for legal recognition. Those in favor of granting AI inventor status argue that it could incentivize further development and investment in AI technologies. On the other hand, skeptics contend that such recognition could lead to even more difficult ethical and legal challenges, including issues of accountability and ownership. 

The UK court’s decision reflects the increasingly tenuous balance that must be struck between encouraging innovation and safeguarding the rights of human inventors. While the ruling does not diminish the role of AI in the inventive process, it scores another point for the necessity of preserving the human-centric nature of intellectual property. 

Who Really Owns an AI System’s Creations?

The case has also reignited debates about the broader legal status of AI in general. Beyond inventorship, unanswered questions persist regarding AI’s capacity for copyright and patent ownership. As AI systems increasingly contribute to inventive solutions, the question of whether these original works can truly be attributed to an artificial entity, its owners, or its creators is rapidly becoming a more and more urgent one. 

In the United States, the USPTO has yet to confront the issue head-on, leaving the legal landscape uncertain as it has shunted particularly complex AI arguments to the courts. However, the UK ruling sets a precedent that may influence future decisions and discussions in other jurisdictions like America. 

The global legal community now faces the challenge of quickly establishing a coherent and harmonized approach to AI-related intellectual property issues, lest the ownership problem grow out of control. It seems certain that AI technology will continue to evolve at an unprecedented pace for the foreseeable future, which means that legal frameworks must also swiftly adapt to strike a reasonable and tenable balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of human actors. 

Where Do AI ‘Creators’ Like DABUS Go from Here?

The recent UK Supreme Court ruling marks a significant milestone in the ongoing dialogue surrounding AI and intellectual property, highlighting a pressing need for legal systems worldwide to grapple with the complexities posed by AI advancements. As countries strive to keep pace with technological innovation, the legal landscape will continue to evolve, shaping the future of intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence. But for now, the question of whether an AI system can be credited as the inventor of a patent or creation has been answered. And the answer, according to the UK Supreme Court, is a resounding “no.” 

If you have questions about AI and its legal standing in the realm of intellectual property, Richards Rodriguez & Skeith’s Intellectual Property team may have the answers for you! Contact us today to learn more!