Court Agrees Patent Inventor Can’t Be Artificial Intelligence
USPTO Rejects Patents With AI as Inventor & Federal Court Agrees
Earlier this month, a federal court ruled that artificial intelligence systems cannot be granted patents and cannot be legally recognized as inventors by U.S. law.
The USPTO and Federal Court in Virginia Declare AI Can’t Be a Patent Inventor
In making this holding, the U.S. federal judge upheld a previous ruling by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The case began when a Missouri company filed for two patents that covered a food container with the inventor listed as “DABUS.” For Imagination Engines, the Missouri company that filed the patents, DABUS refers to a neural network created by the company. When questioned about the applications, Stephen Thaler, the founder of Imagination Engines, claimed that DABUS had indeed come up with both of the patented works, which are food containers based on factual geometry and emergency light beacons.
USPTO Denies AI as Inventor Due to Natural Person Requirement
When the patent applications were filed, however, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office opted to reject both applications with the reasoning that DABUS was not a “natural” person as required by U.S. law. More specifically, U.S. law allows only “natural persons” to be named as inventors on any patent application. Instead of refiling, Thaler chose to sue the director of the patent office in the federal court of eastern Virginia. Thaler argued that no statue or case law definitively prohibited inventions generated by artificial intelligent systems to be patented with the system listed as the inventor. Thaler further argued that such limitations were falsely based on the presumption that only “natural persons” could invent, which is shortsighted.
Federal Court Rules AI Can’t Be Inventor Due to Sworn Oath Requirement
The federal court disagreed, affirming the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office’s holding, specifically citing that the law states “individuals” must swear an oath on the patent application, which artificially intelligent systems are unable to do. As such, they cannot complete the application as required.
The ruling has not deterred Thaler, however, as he plans to continue the fight on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When asked for comment, Thaler noted that he had previously won similar arguments when an Australian federal court agreed with him that artificially intelligent systems could be patent inventors.
Key Takeaways on AI as Inventor of Patents
A Missouri company is fighting for AI to be accepted as inventor of patents. Imagination Engines filed U.S. patent applications with artificial intelligence listed as the patent inventor and:
The U.S. Trademark and Patent Office declared that only “natural persons” could be listed as inventors;
A federal court in eastern Virginia affirmed the holding of the USPTO; but
An Australian federal court earlier agreed that AI could be inventor of patents—opening the door to other foreign jurisdictions to do the same.
------
Related posts:
Panda in a Monkey Selfie Situation? Zoo Sells Paintings Created by Panda Bear
Even a Monkey Can Do It? A Copyright Fight Over Monkey Selfie
For more information on trademark litigation, see our Intellectual Property Litigation and Industry Focused Legal Solutions pages.