• Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Gear
  • Reviews
  • Games
  • Science
  • Security
Reading: AI systems can’t patent inventions, US federal circuit court confirms
Share
Ad image
Technology MagazineTechnology Magazine
Aa
  • News
  • Business
  • Gear
  • Reviews
  • Games
  • Science
  • Security
Search
  • Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Gear
  • Reviews
  • Games
  • Science
  • Security
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
Technology Magazine > News > AI systems can’t patent inventions, US federal circuit court confirms
News

AI systems can’t patent inventions, US federal circuit court confirms

Press room
Press room Published August 8, 2022
Last updated: 2022/08/08 at 11:33 AM
Share
SHARE

The US federal circuit court has confirmed that AI systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human beings.

The ruling is the latest failure in a series of quixotic legal battles by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to copyright and patent the output of various AI software tools he’s created.

In 2019, Thaler failed to copyright an image on behalf of an AI system he dubbed Creativity Machine, with that decision upheld on appeal by the US Copyright Office in 2022. In a parallel case, the US Patent Office ruled in 2020 that Thaler’s AI system DABUS could not be a legal inventor because it was not a “natural person,” with this decision then upheld by a judge in 2021. Now, the federal circuit court has, once more, confirmed this decision.

The law is clear, says the court: only people can hold patents

Writing in the court’s opinion, judge Leonard P. Stark notes that, at first glance, one might think that resolving this case would require “an abstract inquiry into the nature of invention or the rights, if any, of AI systems.” However, says Stark, such “metaphysical matters” can be avoided by simply analyzing the language of the relevant statue: the Patent Act.

The Patent Act clearly states that only human beings can hold patents, says Stark. The Act refers to patent-holders as “individuals,” a term which the Supreme Court has ruled “ordinarily means a human being, a person” (following “how we use the word in everyday parlance”); and uses personal pronouns — “herself” and “himself” — throughout, rather than terms such as “itself,” which Stark says “would permit non-human inventors” in a reading.

“Statutes are often open to multiple reasonable readings. Not so here,” writes Stark. “This is a case in which the question of statutory interpretation begins and ends with the plain meaning of the text … [T]here is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings. “

The ruling confirms the status quo for AI patent law in the US, and shores up what is slowly consolidating as international legal opinion. Both the EU’s patent office and Australian High Court have made similar rulings in recent years (though, in Australia, a federal court did initially rule in favor of AI patent-holders).

According to BloombergLaw, Thaler plans to appeal the circuit court’s ruling, with his attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP, criticizing the court’s “narrow and textualist approach” to the Patent Act.

Abbott told the publication: “It ignores the purpose of the Patent Act and the outcome that AI-generated inventions are now unpatentable in the United States. That is an outcome with real negative social consequences.”

Press room August 8, 2022
Share this Article
Facebook TwitterEmail Print
What do you think?
Love0
Sad0
Happy0
Sleepy0
Angry0
Dead0
Wink0
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Might Also Like

News

Microsoft says it has stopped its Xbox Game Pass $1 trial offer

2 Min Read
News

Apple staff reportedly express doubts about mixed-reality headset months ahead of launch

2 Min Read
News

The Wii U and Nintendo 3DS eShops shut down tomorrow

2 Min Read
News

Elon Musk reportedly halves Twitter’s valuation in internal memo

1 Min Read
  • Review
  • Top Lists
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use

We influence 20 million users and is the number one business and technology news network on the planet.

I have read and agree to the terms & conditions

Contact US

  • Contact Us
  • DMCA
  • Editorial Policy
  • Advertise

Quick Link

  • Gear
  • Games
  • Security
  • Reviews

© 2022 Technology Magazine. All Rights Reserved.

Follow US on Socials

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?