Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

SupremeCourt.jpg

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that only people can be named as inventors on patent applications in a defeat for the legal team behind the DABUS case

The UK Supreme Court has today ruled unanimously that only people, and not artificial intelligence tools, can be inventors under UK patent law.

The keenly awaited decision is a final defeat for the legal team behind the so-called DABUS case that sought to establish an AI tool as the inventor of a food storage system.

Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who developed the DABUS system, applied for two patents for food storage systems that he said were autonomously created by the AI tool.

The UKIPO rejected the applications on the basis that UK law requires a natural person to be named as an inventor.

Thaler and his legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, appealed the decision through the courts, culminating in today’s ruling.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld earlier decisions by the UKIPO and England and Wales High Court in September 2021.

A dissenting opinion from influential IP judge Lord Justice Colin Birss at the Court of Appeal gave hope to supporters of AI inventorship.

Birss said Thaler had fulfilled his obligations under the Patent Act by identifying who he believed to be the inventor and that the patents should be allowed.

But the Supreme Court was unequivocal.

“We conclude an inventor must be a natural person,” said Lord Justice David Kitchin, reading the judgment on behalf of the court.

“Only a person can devise an invention … parliament did not contemplate the possibility that a machine, acting on its own and powered by AI, can be an inventor.”

This was Kitchin’s final judgment for the Supreme Court after he formally retired in September.

A full analysis of the decision will follow on Managing IP later this week.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A decision by the Paris Central Division will lead to more IP work for outside counsel, say sources
Courts are encouraged to deliver judgments within three months of a trial, but that deadline has been missed in several recent cases
Lawyers at Maiwald and Sterne Kessler analyse how patents with claims directed to medical treatments are handled in the US and in Europe
Michael DeVincenzo explains how he and his team convinced the Federal Circuit to find in favour of his client in a patent case against Salesforce
Funders and a litigator explain how litigation funding disclosure requirements could affect their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Discussions about whether to seek director reviews can come up frequently with clients, even though actual grant rates are rare
In the latest episode, we discuss why IP firms might be attractive to PE investors and bring you the latest news on submissions for next year’s IP STARS rankings
Back-to-back PE deals for IP firms in recent years show that IP firms are sitting on goldmines, so traditional partnerships should be open to change
Joseph Maraia, whose team left Burns & Levinson shortly before it closed, says ArentFox Schiff is looking at the right opportunities
Gift this article