by Dennis Crouch
Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [2023] UKSC 49.
In a December 20, 2023 decision, the UK Supreme Court has agreed with American courts that an inventive machine is not deserving of patent rights. The underlying case will be familiar to many with Dr. Stephen Thaler of St. Louis seeking to patent a thermal-mug designed by an artificial intelligence machine that he created. Thaler has argued that the AI (called DABUS) conceived of the particular invention in question and also identified its practical utility. The UK Supreme court based its holding upon the text of the UK Patents Act of 1977 as it reached the same ultimate conclusion as the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023).
These Thaler cases showcase that under the current patent law regime, autonomous AI systems cannot qualify as inventors entitled to patent rights, irrespective of their creativity. For AI-generated inventions to become patentable, intervention by policymakers to amend inventorship laws would likely be necessary. However, the arguably bigger questions of immediate importance surround collaborative human-AI inventions where both human and machine contribute in creation of a new invention. Thaler expressly disclaimed any human input into DABUS’s inventions, but going forward mixed human-AI inventor teams seem inevitable. Neither the UK Supreme Court’s decision nor the parallel US rulings provide direct guidance on the requisite threshold quality or quantity of human participation in such collaborative inventions to satisfy legal inventorship requirements. Thus, for instance, an open issue remains whether token perfunctory human approval of an AI-devised invention would suffice, or if substantive intellectual contribution is needed. And for primarily AI-driven inventions, are minor tweaks by a human collaborator enough? Or must the human contributor objectively supply the novel concept?