Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks: PatC 21 Sep 2020

Patent – artificial intelligence machine as inventor
Held: An artificial intelligence machine is not a person able to apply for registration as an inventor, and the applicant had not shown ownership – Although the judge was prepared to accept as a general rule that the owner of a thing, such as a tree, is the owner of the fruits of that thing, he held there were no such rules in the context of patents. Dr Thaler could not acquire the right to be granted a patent via either s7(2)(b) or (c) because both sections required that the inventor must have transferred the right to apply to the applicant (paragraph 49(3)(c)) and that cannot be the case because DABUS could not do that, because it is not a person. Thus overall Dr Thaler’s contention that he is entitled to the grant of the patents was held to be hopeless and bound to fail

Mr Justice Marcus Smith
[2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromThaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs CA 21-Sep-2021
AI created Invention is not Patentable
The case appears to be about artificial intelligence and whether AI-based machines can make patentable inventions – correct processing of application
Held: The appeal failed. On the face of the Form 7s he filed, Dr Thaler did not comply with . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.654079