Remove Inventor Remove IP Remove Ownership Remove Patent Law
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? Mr. Thaler’s stance was clear: DABUS, as the AI behind the inventions, should be recognized as the inventor.

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

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. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). The court in Pannu v.

Inventor 110
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

[Opinion] Can an AI system be an inventor ?

The IPKat

There has been much headline ink spilled on the question of AI-inventorship in the IP press and beyond. One question that has recently been in the headlines around the world, thanks to the Artificial Inventor Project, is whether or not an AI system can be regarded as an inventor. more likely not. seahorses).

Inventor 134
article thumbnail

“Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors?” – The Max Planck Institute on Machine Autonomy and AI Patent Rights

IPilogue

In July 2021, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 that artificial intelligence (AI) systems may be deemed “inventors” under Australian patent law. The principal question at hand is whether non-human entities, such as AI systems, should have legal capacity.

Inventor 111
article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee’s Recommendations Concerning AI and IP: A Little Late or Way too Early?

SpicyIP

In this post, I will be analysing the recommendations pertaining to the amendment of patent laws in order to facilitate inventorship and ownership by AI. I will be restricting the discussion to the evaluation of the Indian patent regime, as the implications of AI on Indian copyright law has been previously dealt with here.

Invention 122
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
article thumbnail

USPTO Request for Comments on AI as an Inventor

LexBlog IP

2022), in which the court ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) could not be an inventor by itself, the USPTO has now requested comments regarding AI and inventorship. More specifically, in Thaler , Stephan Thaler’s patent applications listed no humans as inventors, and rather listed his AI system, known as DABUS, as the inventor.