Thaler v Comptroller [2023]
Share
Stephen Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 involves two British patent applications filed by Dr Thaler, where he asserted that the inventions were created by an AI machine called DABUS without the involvement of a traditional human inventor.
Dr Thaler is the sole owner, creator, and user of DABUS, and it is not disputed that DABUS created the inventions autonomously. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks refused to accept DABUS as the inventor, stating that DABUS is not a person as required by Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act 1977 Act. Dr Thaler's appeal of this decision was unsuccessful in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, leading to the current appeal to the Supreme Court.
Dr Stephen Thaler filed two patent applications for inventions in 2018, asserting that a machine named DABUS, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), was the inventor. The applications were filed under the Patents Act 1977. The Comptroller notified Dr Thaler that he needed to provide a statement of inventorship and the derivation of his right to the patents. Dr Thaler maintained that DABUS, the machine, was the inventor, and he acquired the right through ownership of the machine.
The Comptroller ruled that DABUS could not be regarded as an inventor under the 1977 Act, and Dr Thaler was not entitled to the patents simply by owning DABUS. The applications were set to be withdrawn after a specified period.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Dr Thaler's appeal. Lord Kitchin delivered the judgment, with agreement from all other Justices. The Court considered the meaning of inventor under the 1977 Act. It was held that an inventor, as per the Act, must be a natural person. The interpretation was supported by legal precedent and the exhaustive code provided by Sections 7(2) and 7(3) of the Act.
Dr Thaler claimed entitlement to the patents based on his ownership of DABUS. The Court rejected this claim, emphasising that the right to apply for and obtain a patent, as outlined in Section 7 of the Act, requires an inventor, who must be a natural person. Dr Thaler did not satisfy the criteria set by the Act.
The Hearing Officer was deemed entitled to hold that Dr Thaler did not fulfil the requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act. Dr Thaler failed to identify a person believed to be the inventor, and his ownership of DABUS did not provide a valid basis for claiming entitlement to the patents. Therefore, the applications were rightfully deemed withdrawn at the end of the specified period.
In summary, the court affirmed that a machine, such as DABUS, cannot be considered an inventor under the 1977 Act, and ownership of the machine does not confer the right to apply for and obtain patents. The applications were rightly deemed withdrawn.
Dr Thaler is the sole owner, creator, and user of DABUS, and it is not disputed that DABUS created the inventions autonomously. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks refused to accept DABUS as the inventor, stating that DABUS is not a person as required by Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act 1977 Act. Dr Thaler's appeal of this decision was unsuccessful in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, leading to the current appeal to the Supreme Court.
Dr Stephen Thaler filed two patent applications for inventions in 2018, asserting that a machine named DABUS, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), was the inventor. The applications were filed under the Patents Act 1977. The Comptroller notified Dr Thaler that he needed to provide a statement of inventorship and the derivation of his right to the patents. Dr Thaler maintained that DABUS, the machine, was the inventor, and he acquired the right through ownership of the machine.
The Comptroller ruled that DABUS could not be regarded as an inventor under the 1977 Act, and Dr Thaler was not entitled to the patents simply by owning DABUS. The applications were set to be withdrawn after a specified period.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Dr Thaler's appeal. Lord Kitchin delivered the judgment, with agreement from all other Justices. The Court considered the meaning of inventor under the 1977 Act. It was held that an inventor, as per the Act, must be a natural person. The interpretation was supported by legal precedent and the exhaustive code provided by Sections 7(2) and 7(3) of the Act.
Dr Thaler claimed entitlement to the patents based on his ownership of DABUS. The Court rejected this claim, emphasising that the right to apply for and obtain a patent, as outlined in Section 7 of the Act, requires an inventor, who must be a natural person. Dr Thaler did not satisfy the criteria set by the Act.
The Hearing Officer was deemed entitled to hold that Dr Thaler did not fulfil the requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act. Dr Thaler failed to identify a person believed to be the inventor, and his ownership of DABUS did not provide a valid basis for claiming entitlement to the patents. Therefore, the applications were rightfully deemed withdrawn at the end of the specified period.
In summary, the court affirmed that a machine, such as DABUS, cannot be considered an inventor under the 1977 Act, and ownership of the machine does not confer the right to apply for and obtain patents. The applications were rightly deemed withdrawn.
