In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal of US computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought patent rights for inventions created by his artificial intelligence system, DABUS.
Thaler aimed to secure two patents in the UK, but the Intellectual Property Office denied his request, asserting that under UK patent law, “an inventor must be a natural person.”
The court’s decision clarified that the appeal did not address the broader question of whether machine-generated technical advances by AI should be patentable.
Judge David Kitchin emphasised in the written ruling, “Nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term ‘inventor’ ought to be expanded… to include machines powered by AI.”
According to Thaler’s legal team, the ruling demonstrates how inadequate the UK’s current patent laws are to protect AI inventions that are created on their own.
Earlier this year, Thaler faced a similar setback in the United States when the Supreme Court declined to review the US Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to grant patents for AI-generated inventions.
According to Browne Jacobson partner Giles Parsons, the ruling by the UK Supreme Court is not shocking at this time because artificial intelligence is currently seen more as a tool than an agent in the patent system.
But as AI’s role develops, he sees possible changes in the medium term.
