Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

IP Australia appeals seminal AI inventorship ruling


Australia's commissioner of patents has filed an appeal against a decision to recognise an artificial intelligence tool as an inventor

The commissioner of patents in Australia has filed an appeal against a decision from the country’s Federal Court that recognised an artificial intelligence tool called DABUS as an inventor on a patent, it was announced today, August 30.

The appeal in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents was filed on Friday, August 27, in the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court of Australia and will soon be decided by the full court.

In a news release, IP Australia said: “The appeal is centered on questions of law and the interpretation of the patents legislation as it currently stands.

“The commissioner considers that the legislation is incompatible with permitting an AI to be an inventor, and that the issue is one of public importance.”

The office also stressed that the appeal did not represent a policy position from the Australian government on whether AI should or could ever be considered to be an inventor on a patent application.

The Australian patent for DABUS – which stands for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience – is just one of many similar applications that have been filed worldwide, some of which have already been rejected in the UK, the US and at the EPO.

Australia was the first country to judicially recognise AI inventorship on July 30 2021, two days after South Africa became the first country to issue a patent designating an AI tool as an inventor.

Justice Jonathan Beach, who handed down the judgment, had based his decision on the reasoning that the word “inventor”, an agent noun, was not defined in the Patents Act or the Patents Regulations.

Accordingly, he found, if an AI system was the agent that invented, it could be described as an inventor.

The appeal is likely to shed some light on the legislative intent behind the term inventor included in the Patents Act as well as on whether inventive step is of concern while determining AI inventorship.

Counsel will no doubt be interested to find out whether the Federal Court’s decision, which has been lauded as forward-looking, will hold water before the full court.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP