“AI Inventions Face Patent Challenges Due to ‘Natural Person’ Requirement”
AI Inventor Dabus Faces Patent Challenges
Stephen Thaler’s artificial intelligence (AI) machine, Dabus, has been credited with two new discoveries: a fractal container and a neural flame. Despite filing patent applications in the UK, EU, and US, Thaler has been unable to secure a patent for these inventions. The High Court in England and Wales sided with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) in refusing the patent applications last year.
The authorities acknowledge that Dabus devised the inventions and that they are patentable. However, the issue lies in the fact that Dabus is not a ‘natural person’. Under patent law, only a ‘natural person’ can be identified as the inventor and granted a patent. This case, the first of its kind, raises complex questions about the role of AI in the discovery process, particularly in sectors like chemistry where AI is increasingly being used.
The AI Inventorship Dilemma
Ryan Abbott, professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey, UK, who is representing Thaler in the Dabus litigation, believes that intellectual property (IP) and inventorship challenges will become more complex as research and development becomes more multidisciplinary and reliant on AI. This is particularly true in the life sciences, where AI-generated inventions pose significant business risks.
Dipendra Jha, a research scientist at Northwestern University, US, and lead machine learning engineer at retail giant Target Corporation, shares Abbott’s concerns. Jha developed ElemNet, a deep neural network model that uses AI to predict the stability of new material candidates. He believes that if these AI-generated discoveries cannot be patented, it could lead to misuse of the compounds and disincentivise the use of AI in future inventions.
However, not everyone agrees that AI should be considered an inventor. Peter Finnie, partner and patent attorney at IP law firm Potter Clarkson, argues that AI is just a tool used to assist in the invention process. He believes that the data, not the computing power, is what’s important.
Where Does Human Invention End and AI Invention Begin?
The question of when AI becomes more than just a tool is a complex one. Abbott argues that human input in datasets and analysis may not be enough to qualify humans as inventors. Finnie, on the other hand, believes that there is not yet enough evidence to say that AI is truly inventing.
As technological advances continue at a rapid pace and AI plays a growing role in discoveries, the question of whether the law needs to change is becoming increasingly important. Abbott believes that the law needs to be reviewed, while Finnie argues that it should remain as it is until there is enough evidence that AI is truly inventing.
Patent Law Review
The Dabus case has prompted authorities to consider changes to the law. The UKIPO, US Patent and Trademark Office, and the World Intellectual Property Organisation have all launched consultations into the matter. The UKIPO is expected to publish a report on the responses to the consultation in March.
The Dabus case in the UK has been passed to the Court of Appeal and a hearing could take place in the first half of 2021. However, it is unlikely that the initial ruling will change, and any changes to the law could be years away. For now, the advice for those seeking a patent is simple: don’t claim that your AI is the inventor.