Remove Invention Remove Inventor Remove Ownership Remove Patent Application
article thumbnail

When is the inventor of an AI model also an inventor of the model's output? A closer look at the USPTO Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

The IPKat

According to the USPTO guidance for AI-assisted inventions , AI has the potential to solve some of society's most difficult challenges. However, in the patent realm, the USPTO also believes that "inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity".

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court rules on AI and Patent Applications

IP Tech Blog

The grounds for the court’s decision was the definition of “inventor” under the Patents Act 1977 (the Act ) which requires the inventor of a patent to be a natural person. So for the moment, the position under the UK patent system is that AI is very much a tool rather than an autonomous agent in its own right.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything?

The IPKat

In keeping with the so-called media "silly season" of late summer, PatKat thought she would check-in on the AI inventor debate. PatKat has been sceptical about Dr Thaler and his purported inventing machine, DABUS, for some time ( IPKat ). Sceptical Kat Has DABUS invented?

article thumbnail

Thaler v. Comptroller-General: Supreme Court Affirms that an AI Cannot be an Inventor under UK Patent Law

Intepat

Registration at UKIPO The case in question, originating in 2019, presents a groundbreaking legal dilemma: Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be acknowledged as an inventor for the purposes of patent ownership? Failing to comply would result in the application being considered withdrawn.

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court rules on AI and Patent Applications

LexBlog IP

The grounds for the court’s decision was the definition of “inventor” under the Patents Act 1977 (the Act ) which requires the inventor of a patent to be a natural person. The court unanimously found that AI cannot.

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). Also, Howard was not named as an inventor.

Inventor 110
article thumbnail

Australia’s Reversal of its DABUS decision on AI-Generated Inventions: How Does this Impact an Imminent Canadian Discussion on AI Inventorship?

IPilogue

Reversing what seemed like a victory for supporters of AI-owned intellectual property, the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia has confirmed the majority view of the world: only human inventors can own patent rights to their creations. This signals a shift in Canadian attitudes towards AI ownership of their work.

Invention 111