Why Thaler’s AI patent odyssey is far from over
We’re in a time where artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly proficient at previously human-only endeavours. In a number of high-profile legal battles, even the idea of invention (perhaps the pinnacle of human achievement) has been questioned.
In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, on December 19.
The case—which focused on the controversial question of whether AI can be considered an inventor—has reignited fundamental debates about invention, ownership, and the future of intellectual property in the age of machines.
Scientist and inventor Stephen Thaler thrust the issue into the legal arena by listing DABUS, his self-proclaimed “AI invention engine”, as the sole inventor on two patent applications for two inventions—a food container adaptable to different shapes, and a fractal-based beverage dispenser.
However, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) saw things differently, refusing Thaler's applications on the grounds that the current legal framework defines inventors as natural persons. Undeterred, Thaler embarked on a legal odyssey, culminating in an historic appeal before the UK Supreme Court.
Far-reaching implications
In its December 2023 judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Thaler's claim, emphasising that the Patents Act 1977 strictly limits inventors to natural persons.
While this merely upholds the established practice, the implications of the Thaler case are potentially far-reaching as businesses increasingly use AI in the course of invention and creation. Those implications, and the questions they raise, are:
