In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has declared that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be registered as inventors of patents, denying machines the same legal status as humans. The decision was reached following a lengthy legal battle led by American technologist Dr. Stephen Thaler, who sought to name his AI system, known as DABUS, as the inventor of two patents. Thaler argued that DABUS autonomously created a container for food and drink, as well as a light beacon, and therefore, he should have rights over its inventions.

However, both the Intellectual Property Office and lower courts in the UK had previously rejected Thaler's application, stating that DABUS cannot be officially registered as an inventor because it lacks personhood. Thaler then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, hoping for a different outcome. Nonetheless, a panel of judges unanimously dismissed the case, affirming that DABUS is "not a person, let alone a natural person," and did not devise any relevant invention.

This ruling highlights the growing disconnect between current legislation and technological advancements. Legal experts argue that the case demonstrates the urgent need to update UK laws, given the remarkable progress made by AI in recent years. Generative AI systems, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, have the ability to rapidly produce new poems, songs, and computer code, showcasing the potential of AI to generate innovative and non-obvious products and processes with minimal human input.

Nick White, a partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, remarked that policymakers rather than judges are likely to drive the necessary changes, as AI systems continue to advance in sophistication and capability. The case raises fundamental questions about the criteria for patent eligibility, prompting discussions on whether one must be a human being to hold a patent. Dr. Thaler's legal team argued that the law does not explicitly require personhood to obtain a patent and that he should be able to apply on behalf of the AI since he owns it. However, the Supreme Court's judges concluded that only a person can devise an invention, emphasizing that DABUS is not an inventor.

While the ruling does not address whether the AI system created the inventions, it clarifies that AI cannot be considered an inventor under the current Patents Act of 1977. Patents serve to provide legal protection for new, non-obvious inventions that meet specific requirements. They grant exclusive rights to the owner, preventing others from making, using, importing, or selling the patented invention within the country where the patent is granted.

Unfortunately for Dr. Thaler, this judgment marks a final rejection of his appeal to secure legal protection for the work produced by his AI system. However, as AI becomes increasingly prevalent as a creative tool, similar disputes over patent eligibility are expected to arise more frequently. Policymakers will need to address whether existing legislation adequately accounts for the nature of today's inventions and the role of technology in order to establish a framework that accommodates AI-driven innovation.