New status on the fight to recognize AI as an inventorAAA IPRIGHT2
On top of the news that an AI has been appointed to protect the rights of its client in a legal battle, the fight to recognize an AI to become an inventor in Australia has got new updates.
For recollection, Dr. Stephen Thaler is one of the world’s most brilliant scientists on many subjects. However, people in the IP field don’t know him because of his Ph.D. or talented, they know him because of his constant efforts to recognize the AI called “DABUS” to be the owner of an invention.
Thaler has created a whole new AI paradigm dubbed “DABUS” that conceives new innovations and art forms throughout the previous decade. These are not parametric optimizations, but whole novel notions produced by the interconnections of several artificial neural networks.
Thaler’s artificial inventors were given learning rules to link memories held inside a succession of nets together to construct not just complicated concepts, but also the implications of these notions, which psychologists term emotional reactions.
In April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia issued a decision to not recognize AI as an inventor in Australia. This was a huge blockade in the path of recognizing the role of AI in the new era of Dr. Thaler’s team. Before, he has his team filed many patent applications with AI as the inventor in many countries, including the European Union.
Sadly, the EPO has made it clear that an inventor in a patent application must be a human being under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
However, the major event took place in Australia. In 2019, Thaler filed an application for an Australian patent, naming the AI system DABUS as an inventor with the following keynotes:
- The patent commissioner dismissed DABUS as the inventor, claiming that the AI system was not a genuine person.
- Thaler filed an appeal with the Federal Court, which determined that AI may be recognized as the inventor.
- The patent commissioner filed an appeal with the Full Federal Court. The prior judgement was reversed by the Full Court in April 2022, which ruled that only natural people – whether an individual or a corporation – may be identified as inventors in a patent application.
- Thaler then sought special leave to appeal the verdict to the High Court of Australia. His application was denied by the High Court.
The fight to recognize AI as an inventor
According to experts, the Full Court’s reasoning is that although the term ‘inventor’ is not stated fully in the Patent Act of Australia, previous rulings on similar matters indicated that the term means the mind of a human, despite the fact that those cases don’t even have the definition of robot or AI mentioned.
Another problem pointed out by Dr. Thaler’s team is the Full Court’s misreading of the relevant Patents Act clause. This section specifies four types of people who may be granted a patent. Because only a human inventor may be awarded a patent under the first class, the Full Court ruled that another person may only become entitled to the issuance of a patent under one of the other classes by obtaining that entitlement from the human inventor.
However, each of the classes is correctly interpreted as an option. It does not follow that because a non-human inventor will not be granted a patent, a person cannot otherwise obtain entitled to an invention developed by a non-human.
– You could see the Procedure of Trademark in Australia here.
– You could visit here to see the Required documents of filing trademark in Australia.
Or sending your inquiry by filling the form: