Court of Appeal upholds decision that AI machines cannot be ‘inventors’
The Court of Appeal has held that an AI machine cannot be named as the ‘inventor’ of a patent, because it is not a ‘natural person’, and is therefore also incapable of transferring the right in that patent to a person.
Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374
The Court of Appeal has held that an AI machine cannot be named as the ‘inventor’ of a patent, because it is not a ‘natural person’, and is therefore also incapable of transferring the right in that patent to a person.
The judgment, handed down on 21 September 2021, concerned patent applications in respect of inventions made by ‘DABUS’, an AI ‘creativity machine’ created by Dr. Stephen Thaler. Dr. Thaler, as the applicant for the patents, had listed DABUS as the inventor and himself as having the right to be granted the patents by way of his ownership of DABUS.
In December 2019, the IPO had deemed the applications to be withdrawn because Dr. Thaler’s statement of inventorship did not satisfy the relevant requirements.
Dr. Thaler’s appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful: Marcus Smith J interpreted the Patents Act 1977 as requiring that the inventor be a “natural person”, and held that DABUS would have been incapable of transferring the property right in the patent in any case.
Dr. Thaler appealed again to the Court of Appeal, where the majority of judges upheld the decision of the High Court.
All judges agreed that the 1977 Act had been “drafted on the footing that the inventor is a person...who actually devised the invention”. As “[m]achines are not persons”, machines have “no right to be mentioned as the inventor” on a patent.
However, the court differed on the interpretation of section 13(2), which requires the applicant to:-
(a)identify the “person or persons whom he believes to be the inventor or inventors”; and,
(b)where the applicant is not the sole inventor, indicate “the derivation of his...right to be granted the patent”.
Birss LJ, dissenting, was of the view that the former is satisfied where the applicant provides their “genuine belief”, and the latter where the applicant gives “an indication of the derivation of this right to be granted the patent”. These details are provided by the applicant for informational purposes only, and the Comptroller is not entitled to examine the factual correctness of this information. If a third party believes that this information is incorrect, they can bring proceedings under sections 8 or 37 of the 1977 Act; in the meantime, the applicant is deemed to have complied with section 13(2).
Arnold LJ (with whom Laing LJ agreed) agreed that section 13 did not permit the Comptroller to evaluate the accuracy of the information supplied by the applicant, but held the applicant must still at least comply with the requirements of section 13. Dr. Thaler had not, held Arnold LJ, identified the “person or persons” whom he believed to be the inventor, as DABUS is a “non-person”; whether Dr. Thaler genuinely believed that DABUS was the inventor was irrelevant. Similarly, Dr. Thaler did not identify the derivation of his right to be granted the patent: he had simply stated that he was entitled to the patent by virtue of his ownership of DABUS, which Arnold LJ held was incorrect “as a matter of law”. The Comptroller had therefore been entitled to treat the application as withdrawn.
This case was not about the “glamour” (as Birss LJ put it) of questions such as whether AI-based machines can make patentable inventions. It was actually a case about the correct way to process patent applications.
Given that context, the decision is unsurprising: as stated repeatedly by the judges, the court must consider the “present state of the law”, rather than argue about “what the law should be”. Whether or not one believes machines ought to be capable of being named inventors, to account for recent developments in technology, UK patent law does not appear, in its current state, to provide such flexibility.
Alongside his applications to UK courts, Dr. Thaler has raised similar proceedings in various jurisdictions around the world, receiving mixed results. Although the European Patent Office previously rejected his application (links here and here), as did the US Patent and Trademark Office (link), Dr. Thaler’s applications have since been successful in Australia (link) and South Africa (link) (albeit it under different statutory frameworks).
In light of the split judgment and Dr. Thaler’s partial success in other jurisdictions, it may well be that these questions are appealed further to the Supreme Court.
This article was first published by The Patent Lawyer
Mark Daniels, Partner and Associate Connor Griffith, of Browne Jacobson LLP
Contact
Mark Daniels
Partner
mark.daniels@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3993
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
In Person Event
'Autonomous vehicles: what the future holds' event
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises privacy-first ad tech company Covatic on Series A investment led by Manchester based Praetura Ventures
Legal Update
AI modelling biases in quote engines
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Legal Update
Knowledge exchange and intellectual property
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise on strategic sale of cybersecurity firm Nowcomm
Legal Update
Government to expand network and Information systems regulations
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise Leicestershire based tech compliance specialists Obsequio Group on two key investment deals for build and buy strategy
Legal Update
UK Government publishes the Online Safety Bill: an overview
On-Demand
NSIA: the thorn in the side of M&A?
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Online Event
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Legal Update
Government publishes its proposals for expanding the Scope of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Superscript on £45m Series B funding round to transform its SME insurtech offering
Guide
FAQs for startups
Below are some of the questions we are regularly asked by startups, covering a range of topic areas.
Press Release
International leading digital disruption expert joins Browne Jacobson
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
Browne Jacobson helps the Civil Aviation Authority take off with its modernisation masterplan
Press Release
Law firm Browne Jacobson reveals strategic growth plan for new Dublin office
UK law firm Browne Jacobson, which opened its first overseas office in Dublin in September, has outlined its strategic plans to grow its legal team over the next four years.
Press Release
Bishopsgate and Browne Jacobson advise on US firm’s acquisition of Notts based tech services business Custard
Bishopsgate Corporate Finance and law firm Browne Jacobson have jointly advised on the acquisition of award-winning tech solutions business, Custard Technical Services by US managers services and cyber security provider, Thrive.
Press Release
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Published Article
AI generated designs on retail products
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
Legal Update
Floating offshore wind pipeline potential
Published Article
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
Legal Update
DSA approved: Targeted Advertising Rules explained
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson corporate tech lawyers advise Agilico on significant acquisition of managed print services specialist
Browne Jacobson’s corporate technology dealmakers have advised Agilico, a workplace technology business, on its acquisition of Capital Document Solutions Limited for an undisclosed amount.
Legal Update
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
Browne Jacobson helps Clean Power Hydrogen plc
Press Release
Browne Jacobson appoints its first Non-Executive to Chair to support its corporate sector strategy board
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Clean Power Hydrogen on latest international licensing deal with Kenera
Browne Jacobson’s specialist cleantech lawyers have advised AIM listed Clean Power Hydrogen Group Limited (CPH2) on its licence agreement with Bentec GmbH, a member of the Kenera business of the KCA Deutag Group. Kenera will manufacture CPH2’s unique membrane-free electrolysers from its facility in Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s specialist corporate finance lawyers advise LDC on sale of global IT services provider
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
Legal Update
Digital Markets Act and Data Platforms - FRANDs for life?
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
Opinion
Cameras in convenience stores: a potential hornet’s nest..?
Legal Update
Merger and Acquisition trends in the specialist lending market
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises BGF on its exit from business communications specialist Jola Cloud Solutions
We advised equity investor, Business Growth Fund on its exit from mobile data SIMs & business communications specialist Jola Cloud Solutions.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation lawyers praised in 2022’s IAM Patent 1000 guide
National law firm Browne Jacobson has been ranked again for both its patent litigation and transactional work in the 2022 edition of IAM Patent 1000, the independent guide to the world’s leading patent law firms and practitioners.
Legal Update
The Race to Net Zero: Commercial and Legal Considerations
This article covers, at a high level, some of the legal issues that arise in the lifecycle of the innovation and deployment of new technology within the energy sector. It is not intended to be a comprehensive account of all legal aspects.