The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a computer scientist who attempted to patent inventions created by his artificial intelligence (AI). The case has raised questions about the ownership of AI-created intellectual property and the future of patent law in an age of rapidly advancing technology.
The plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, tried to patent inventions created by his AI, named DABUS (short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). Specifically, DABUS is said to have generated prototypes for a beverage holder and an emergency light beacon without any human input or intervention.
But Thaler’s request was shot down by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which claimed that only humans can be inventors.
Thaler didn’t take the decision lying down, however, and he took his case all the way to the top. He argued that AI is being used across various fields from energy to medicine and that denying patents for AI-created inventions is bad for innovation and progress. Despite the support of Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig and other academics, the Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler’s case.
Thaler filed patent applications for his DABUS system in several countries, including the U.K., South Africa, Australia and Saudi Arabia. Out of these countries, South Africa is the only one that granted the patent to the DABUS system, making it the first AI system to be granted a patent.
His case was heard by the U.K. Supreme Court in March. The U.K. Intellectual Property Office echoed the U.S. sentiment, with the only point of contention being the issue of inventorship.
To stay updated with top startup news & investments, sign up for Benzinga's Startup Investing & Equity Crowdfunding Newsletter
What does this mean for the future of AI and patents in the United States? The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Thaler’s patent application for AI-generated inventions has ignited a larger conversation about the implications of AI on intellectual property law. As AI technology continues to advance, the question of ownership of intellectual property generated by machines becomes increasingly important. The ruling has raised questions about the current patent system’s ability to accommodate AI technology and whether legislative reform is necessary.
Supporters of Thaler’s case argue that AI technology is driving innovation across numerous fields and that the patent system must adapt to keep pace with this change. Others suggest that new legislative frameworks may be required to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected in an era of machine-generated inventions.
As AI becomes more advanced, it’s likely that it will be capable of creating even more complex and groundbreaking inventions. But if those inventions can’t be patented, what’s the incentive for individuals and companies to invest in AI research and development?
See more on startup investing from Benzinga.
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.
