This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Commissioner of Patents , case number VID 108 of 2021, in the Federal Court of Australia, an Australian Federal Judge became the first known jurist to rule that inventions developed by artificial intelligence can qualify for patent protection.
AI has created new legal issues as its capabilities continue to advance, especially when it comes to identifying who owns what rights and ownership of works or innovations. Patentlaw has historically acknowledged that people are the ones who create new technology. This led to a historic court dispute in both the US and the UK.
Commissioner of Patents , case number VID 108 of 2021, in the Federal Court of Australia, an Australian Federal Judge became the first known jurist to rule that inventions developed by artificial intelligence can qualify for patent protection.
The Issue The Indian Patent Office , has for the first time rejected to recognize the claim of AI to be an inventor relying upon Section 2 and 6 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (Hereinafter, the Act). [1] 1] Legal personality refers to the ability of an entity to hold legal rights and obligations. 7] Way ahead?
But that is just what his Honour Justice Beach has done in a recent judgment that a patentapplicant can name as the inventor, not a human person, but an artificial intelligence ( AI ) system. [1]. 3] The application was filed in 2019 by Dr Thaler as the patentee, but named DABUS itself as the inventor.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content