UK Supreme Court Rules AI Cannot Be Patent Inventor: 'Natural Person' Required for Patent Attribution

AI may reshape the job landscape in the future, but there is one crucial area it cannot penetrate: patenting inventions. Dr. Stephen Thaler has dedicated years to securing patents for two inventions attributed to his AI "creativity machine," DABUS. Recently, the UK Supreme Court denied his appeal to recognize DABUS as the inventor, citing a provision in UK patent law that specifies "an inventor must be a natural person." This ruling highlights that current UK patent law does not accommodate inventions created autonomously by AI.

Thaler first sought to patent a food container and a flashing light in 2018, asserting ownership of the AI that generated these inventions. However, the UK Intellectual Property Office insisted that a human must be listed as the inventor. When Thaler refused to comply, his application was withdrawn. He subsequently contested this decision in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, where Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing stated, "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot."

In addition to his efforts in the UK, Thaler submitted the same patents to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but faced a similar rejection. He also took legal action against the US Copyright Office after it denied him copyright for an artwork created by DABUS. This case was heard in the US District Court of Columbia, where Judge Beryl Howell emphasized that "Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." Thaler has claimed that this requirement is unconstitutional; however, the US Supreme Court opted not to review his case, effectively concluding his attempts in that arena.

While the UK and US remain firm in their positions, Thaler has experienced success in Australia and South Africa, where he has secured patents for his AI-generated inventions.