AI Cannot be a Patent Holder Under Current Law, UK Supreme Court Rules

Introduction

In the latest judgement on artificial intelligence (AI), the UK Supreme Court clarified that AI cannot be classed as an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of the Patents Act 1977.

The case

The case was brought forward by Dr Stephen Thaler, the creator of an AI called DABUS. On behalf of the system, Dr Thaler applied for two patents to the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for a food container and a light beacon. Both applications were rejected as the IPO found they did not satisfy the conditions for patent protection.

In particular, the case focused on the requirement of an ‘inventor’. This label can only be satisfied by a ‘legal person’. The claimant’s team argued that the current law does not exclude non-human inventors from patent protection, and it does not specify the ‘nature of the inventor’.

The judgement

The Supreme Court unanimously refused to grant the patents to DABUS after categorising it as a “machine with no legal personality”. The highest court relied on the well-established classification of legal persons which is limited to humans or companies.

Repercussions

The judgement forms part of an emerging line of case law on AI. For now, it should be seen as an encouraging development that begins to clarify the relationship of AI with the law, even if the current form prevents it from obtaining IP protection. It is likely to contribute to political discussions on any future legislative changes.

Nonetheless, the case seems to reinforce global limits to obtaining IP protection for AI creations. Although the judgement was given in the UK, Dr Thaler’s case in the US was also rejected by the American courts. 

By Zuzanna Potocka