Do not worry, artificial intelligence systems for humans aren't yet taking over the world. They cannot even be inventors on U.S. Patents.
Advertisement
U.S. Federal Judge Leonie Brikema ruled that an AI cannot be listed on a U.S. Patent as an inventor under current law. Stephen Thaler, part of the Artificial Inventor Project (an international initiative that argues an AI should be listed as an inventor on a U.S. patent), brought the case forward. The patent owner would legally own the patent.
After the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Thaler's patent applications, it sued Thaler. Thaler had named DABUS the AI inventor of a new type flashing light and a beverage can. The Patent Office provided several responses that covered many months. They explained to Thaler how a machine is not an inventor since it is not a person. The agency claimed that the machine was a tool people use to invent inventions.
Brikema concluded that the Patent Office had correctly enforced the nations' patent laws. He pointed out that it all boils down the daily use of language. In 2011, Congress revised the nations patent law to define an inventor as an individual. Brikema pointed out that the Patent Office correctly enforced the laws.
Brikema stated in her ruling that Congress clearly meant to refer to a natural person by using personal pronouns like himself or herself, and the verb believes the adjacent terms modifying individual. The Patent Act presumes that an individual has a consistent meaning because it is presumpted that the term individual will be used throughout the statute.
G/O Media could be eligible for a commission on the HP OmenX 27 Gaming Monitor. This monitor is a great addition to streamers.
Every raid has brilliant pixels. Purchase for only $505 at HP
Thaler's argument that the Patent Office needed to show evidence that Congress didn't want AI systems to be inventors was also rejected by the judge.
Brikema also stated that the nature and purpose of an inventor had already been considered by federal courts. They have determined that neither states nor companies can claim to be inventors under a patent.
Advertisement
Thaler, for his part, tried to argue that court should honor Congress intent to create an environment that encourages innovation.
Patents for AI-Generated Inventions are a way to encourage innovation. This will encourage the development of AI capable to produce patentable output, Thaler stated. In contrast, denial of patent protection for AI-Generated Inventions could undermine the patent system and discourage the creation of socially beneficial inventions.
Advertisement
However, Thaler was not successful with this argument. Brikema stated that these were policy considerations, and should be addressed by Congress, and not the courts.
It is not as if the Patent Office refuses to examine what role AI should play in patents. It requested comments on artificial intelligence in patent policy. The majority of responses indicated that AI currently in use could not invent or author without human intervention.
Advertisement
Ryan Abbott, a law professor, said that the Artificial Inventor Project would be of interest to Bloomberg. Brikema refuted every argument, but she did not say that an AI could not be listed as an inventor.
As technology advances, artificial intelligence may reach a point where it is able to satisfy the accepted definitions of inventorship. Brikema stated that this time is not yet here. If it does, Congress will decide how to expand the patent law's scope.
