The UK Supreme Court made a groundbreaking decision denying AI the status of a 'patent inventor'. he ruling came after Dr. Stephen Thaler, US computer scientist sought to secure patents for inventions attributed to his AI system, DABUS. However, the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected the patents, asserting that only humans or companies could be recognized as inventors, not machines. Despite the appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was unanimous: under UK patent law, 'an inventor must be a person'.

The ruling specifically addressed the question of whether machines powered by AI should be eligible for patent rights, emphasizing that the case did not delve into broader discussions about the patentability of technical advancements from autonomous AI-driven systems. Thaler's legal team expressed concern, stating that the current UK patent law inadequately protects AI-generated inventions.

Why does this matter?

This outcome aligns with a similar loss Thaler experienced in the United States, where the Supreme Court also declined to challenge the refusal of patents for AI-created inventions. Legal experts, such as Giles Parsons from Browne Jacobson, consider the UK Supreme Court's decision as expected and foresee a potential shift in the future as AI evolves from a tool to an agent, prompting necessary adjustments in the patent system. An analysis on the challenges coming with AI and intellectual property right can be found here.