PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.

UK Supreme Court: AI Isn't Human, Can't Be Patent Inventor

UK law requires an inventor to 'be a natural person,' so Stephen Thaler's DABUS AI doesn't qualify.

 & Joe Hindy Contributor

Our team tests, rates, and reviews more than 1,500 products each year to help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.

Our Expert
LOOK INSIDE PC LABS HOW WE TEST
65 EXPERTS
43 YEARS
41,500+ REVIEWS
(Credit: Chor Muang / Getty Images)

The UK Supreme Court today rejected a bid by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to patent several inventions churned out by an AI he claims to own.

Thaler used his "creativity machine," known as DABUS, to invent a food and drink container along with a light beacon. When he tried to file the patents, the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected his application, stating that it couldn't register DABUS as the inventor because it's not human. Thaler took his case to the UK Supreme Court, which today upheld the ruling from the UK IPO, Reuters reports.

The UK Supreme Court says its ruling does not answer "the broader question [of] whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable." Instead it only addresses whether Thaler can file these patents using the country's Patents Act of 1977. But since that law requires an inventor to "be a natural person," DABUS doesn't qualify here.

Thaler also tried to patent DABUS's inventions in the US, but was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office. The US Supreme Court then declined to hear his appeal.

Thaler's lawyer tells Reuters that the ruling "establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines and as a consequence wholly inadequate in supporting any industry that relies on AI in the development of new technologies."

A spokesperson for the IPO applauded the court's decision and "the clarification it gives as to the law as it stands in relation to the patenting of creations of artificial intelligence machines."

In the US, a judge in August upheld a finding from the US Copyright Office that declared a piece of art created by artificial intelligence is not open to copyright protection.

About Our Expert

Joe Hindy

Joe Hindy

Contributor

Hello, my name is Joe and I am a tech blogger. My first real experience with tech came at the tender age of 6 when I started playing Final Fantasy IV (II on the SNES) on the family's living room console. As a teenager, I cobbled together my first PC build using old parts from several ancient PCs, and really started getting into things in my 20s. I served in the US Army as a broadcast journalist. Afterward, I served as a news writer for XDA-Developers before I spent 11 years as an Editor, and eventually Senior Editor, of Android Authority. I specialize in gaming, mobile tech, and PC hardware, but I enjoy pretty much anything that has electricity running through it.

Read full bio