the health strategist
institute for strategic health transformation
& digital technology
Joaquim Cardoso MSc.
Chief Research and Strategy Officer (CRSO),
Chief Editor and Senior Advisor
November 21, 2023
One page summary
What is the message?
Courts worldwide grapple with the complex question of whether artificial intelligence can be recognized as an ‘inventor’ in legal contexts, as exemplified by the case of Dabus.
As AI continues to revolutionize industries, the law struggles to keep pace, raising questions about patent rights, AI’s creative contributions, and the need for a revamped legal regime.
What are the key points?
Dabus Legal Challenge:
Stephen Thaler’s legal challenge in the English courts against the UK Intellectual Property Office highlights the rejection of patent applications naming Dabus, an AI machine, as the inventor of innovative designs. Similar cases have emerged globally, showcasing the legal community’s struggle to adapt to AI-driven inventions.
Global Legal Variances:
Courts in the US and Europe largely align against recognizing AI as an inventor. However, Australia briefly acknowledged Dabus as an inventor, only to reverse the decision later. The inconsistency in global rulings emphasizes the need for a unified approach to address the implications of AI in patent law.
Patent Application Trends:
The period between 2002 and 2018 saw a notable increase in patent applications containing AI technology, reaching almost 16% of applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office. Decisions on AI-made inventions could significantly impact industries relying on these patents and may influence investment in AI research.
Challenges to Current Patent Law:
Legal experts argue that existing patent laws are inadequate for addressing the challenges posed by AI in the fourth industrial revolution. Calls for a new legal regime resonate, emphasizing the necessity to adapt patent laws to the evolving technological landscape.
Copyright Dilemmas:
Copyright protection for AI-generated works, particularly in the UK, raises debates about the appropriateness of applying traditional copyright laws to non-human creations. While some argue for stricter criteria, the UK government considers potential changes in response to public consultations.
US Copyright Office Stance:
The US Copyright Office refuses to register works produced solely by AI, asserting the need for human authorship for copyright protection. Recent rejections, including an AI-generated painting, exemplify the challenges in aligning existing copyright laws with AI-generated creations.
Statistics
- Between 2002 and 2018, the share of patent applications containing AI technology grew from 9% to almost 16% at the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Examples
- Stephen Thaler’s legal challenge against the rejection of patent applications for AI-generated inventions by the UK Intellectual Property Office.
- The US Copyright Office’s refusal to register an AI-generated painting titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” highlighting challenges in defining authorship.
Conclusion
The evolving landscape of AI inventions poses a significant challenge to existing patent and copyright laws.
Global disparities in court rulings underscore the pressing need for a cohesive and adaptive legal framework that can effectively address the complexities arising from AI-generated innovations.
DEEP DIVE
This summary was written based on the article “Inability to patent AI creations could hit business investment” published by Financial Times and written by Jane Croft on June 16, 2o22.
To read the original publication, click here.
