• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English Français
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • M&C Reacts

Inventorship and Artificial Intelligence

30 August 2021
Print
Share

Artificial intelligence (AI) never ceases to challenge our certainties in the field of patent law, even if it means taking us out of the summer torpor. The latest feat in this field comes from Dr. Stephen Thaler(1), who has been trying to have AI recognised as an inventor for several years. 

Dr. Thaler is the proud applicant of a PCT application(2) for both a food container and a device to attract attention, inventions that he claims were made by the AI DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). DABUS would thus be able to appreciate its creations through its own learning rules, allowing it to make affective responses close to those of a human being.

Dr. Thaler's PCT application has been widely extended, including to the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and South Africa, with different conclusions regarding the assessment of inventorship.

Thus, in Europe, the approach developed to answer this question is a traditional one(3). The inventor is a human being: he is the person whose creativity has given rise to an invention. Moreover, this inventor must have legal personality in order to exercise his rights to the invention. Today, however, AI has no rights. It is just considered as a machine. It follows that a patent application with an AI listed as an inventor is rejected and its production does not benefit from the protection offered by patent law. This approach is also shared by the USPTO(4). The only way to obtain patent protection would remain to name a natural person instead of the machine, such as the researcher or group of researchers who operated the AI to make the invention. This, for the proponents of an inventor AI, would not correspond to the reality of the innovative process.

This rigorous approach has been somewhat challenged recently by decisions in South Africa and Australia(5). The latter decision notably recognised the possibility for an AI to be indicated as an inventor in a PCT application designating Australia.  The underlying question here is whether it is appropriate to recognise the creative capacity of a machine previously created by humans.

(1) https://imagination-engines.com/founder.html
(2) WO2020/079499
(3) https://www.epo.org/news-events/in-focus/ict/artificial-intelligence_fr.html
(4) https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
(5) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0879

Next Story
  • What makes a good intellectual property solicitor?
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Agritech space
  • Cook v Boston – practicalities relating to the Shorter Trial Scheme and costs budgeting
  • Patenting DLT innovations in Europe
  • Applications of DLTs
More insights

Latest Insights

What makes a good IP solicitor?
Article
- 15 August 2022

What makes a good intellectual property solicitor?

A vital value of most UT Companies are their IP in terms of patents, trademarks etc. Once registered and secured, the companies work every day to monetise that investment in a global market. Sometimes the IP comes under attack from competitors or other companies, and an international IP professional is needed to assist them. Those are some of the issues that a professional Intellectual Property Solicitors work with. But how do they work, and what is the difference between a Property Solicitors and a Patent Attorney?
Read more
Article
- 12 August 2022

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Agritech space

The European Patent Office (EPO) has seen a remarkable increase in the number of AI patent filings in the Agritech sector in recent years. In this article we highlight the growth from the year 2000 until 2019.
Read more
Photo: Gavel and Justice Scale
Article
- 11 August 2022

Cook v Boston – practicalities relating to the Shorter Trial Scheme and costs budgeting

The Shorter Trial Scheme (STS) was set up with the purpose of providing parties with an avenue to achieve earlier, shorter trials for reasonably sized litigation at a proportionate cost. The judgment in proceedings between Cook and Boston contains a few practical points on the STS and other case management issues.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq