The US Patent Office reaffirms that patents cannot be granted to artificial intelligence. However, it clarifies that the utilization of an AI system by a human does not prevent an individual from meeting the qualifications of an inventor.
(Photo : OLIVIER MORIN/AFP via Getty Images)
This illustration photograph taken in Helsinki on June 12, 2023, shows an AI (Artificial Intelligence) logo blended with four fake Twitter accounts bearing profile pictures apparently generated by Artificial Intelligence software.
Confirming AI Can't Hold Patents
The latest guidance from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) emphasizes that while artificial intelligence systems cannot be designated as inventors, individuals can employ AI tools during the inventive process and must disclose such usage.
The Verge reported that this directive follows extensive public consultation, with the USPTO affirming that although AI systems and other entities lacking natural personhood cannot be credited as inventors in patent filings, individuals utilizing AI remain eligible for inventor status.
Applicants are required to divulge any AI involvement in the creation process, consistent with the agency's mandate to disclose all pertinent information. Nonetheless, for an individual to qualify as an inventor and secure a patent, they must have made substantial contributions to the conception of the invention.
The mere act of instructing an AI system to generate an invention, without meaningful involvement in its development, does not confer inventorship. The USPTO clarifies that merely posing a problem to an AI system or passively accepting its output as a novel invention does not merit inventorship rights.
Also Read: UK Supreme Court Examines Whether AI Can Be Named 'Inventor' During Patent Dispute
Through the document, USPTO emphasizes that demonstrating a significant contribution involves how an individual formulates the query to address a specific problem, thereby eliciting a targeted solution from the AI system.
Furthermore, the office clarifies that merely having "intellectual domination" over an AI system does not automatically confer inventorship upon an individual. Therefore, merely supervising or possessing an AI system capable of generating inventions does not grant the right to file patents for those creations.
Previous Instances
In 2020, the USPTO made a decisive ruling, asserting that only "natural humans" are eligible to apply for patents. This ruling came after researcher Stephen Thaler's petition, wherein he attempted to include the AI system he developed, known as DABUS, as an inventor in a patent application.
Despite Thaler's efforts, a US court upheld the patent office's decision. In a separate case brought by Thaler involving an AI-generated image, a different federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be granted copyright.
Following these legal developments, both the USPTO and the US Copyright Office engaged in a series of public consultations aimed at formulating new guidelines for handling AI-related matters in patent and copyright petitions.
Meanwhile, the UK Supreme Court rejected the notion of designating artificial intelligence programs as inventors for patents in December, upholding the longstanding legal requirement that inventors must be natural persons.
Related Article: AI Bots Cannot Named as Inventors for Patents, UK's Top Court Rules
