Innovation Beyond Humans: Grappling with AI Inventorship Dilemmas

The issue at hand in the case was whether a machine with artificial intelligence might qualify as an inventor under the Patent Act. Two of Stephen Thaler’s AI machine’s (DABUS – Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) purported inventions were the subject of a patent application. 

Thaler creates and manages AI systems that produce patentable inventions. Thaler asserts that DABUS is able to independently produce original ideas and technologies without the help of humans. 

DABUS created a new kind of beverage container with a warning light for self-driving automobiles in 2018. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, Thaler submitted patent applications for these ideas.  

Thaler claimed that he did not contribute to the conception of these inventions and designated DABUS as the only inventor in each patent application. 

The court dismissed Thaler’s claims that the Patent Act backs up his assertion that the term “individual” does not only apply to people.  

Thaler argued that without permitting AI programs to be considered inventors, patentability would depend on “the manner in which the invention was made,” which would be in conflict with another statutory requirement, 35 U.S.C. 103(a).  

However, the court rejected Thaler’s reasoning. According to the court, “Thaler’s policy arguments are speculative and lack a basis in the text of the Patent Act and in the record.”  

Both the patent system and the place of artificial intelligence in innovation were significantly impacted by the ruling. The decision made it clear that under the Patent Act, only natural individuals may be inventors.  

This ruling was consistent with the long-held belief that natural humans, not robots or algorithms, are the only recipients of patents.