The U.S. District Court has confirmed that artificial intelligence systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human. Writes about it The Verge.
According to Judge Leonard P. Stark, the Patent Act clearly states that only an individual can be the owner of an invention. According to the ruling of the US Supreme Court, the term “usually means a person, a person.”
“This is the case when the question of the interpretation of the law begins and ends with the simple meaning of the text […]. There is no ambiguity about this: the Patent Law requires inventors to be natural persons, that is, people, ”concluded Stark.
The decision is the latest in a series of legal battles between scientist Stephen Thaler and the US Patent Office. Since 2019, the engineer has been trying to copyright the “Recent Entry into Paradise” image on behalf of an algorithm called the Creativity Machine. Then the United States Copyright Office (USPTO) denied Thaler registration.
In 2021, the court upheld the USPTO decision. Now the federal district court has upheld the ruling once again.
Thaler and his attorney, Ryan Abbott, plan to appeal the decision, criticizing the court’s “narrow and textual approach” to the Patents Act.
“It ignores the purpose of the Patent Act and the fact that AI-assisted inventions are no longer patentable in the United States. This is a result with real negative social consequences,” said Abbott.
Recall that in February, the USPTO rejected an application to register the intellectual property of an art object created by a machine learning algorithm.
In June, the inventor demanded through the court to patent the painting generated by the AI model.
In August, representatives of business and intellectual property in the US called for a rewrite of patent laws for artificial intelligence.
Subscribe to Cryplogger news in Telegram: Cryplogger AI – all the news from the world of AI!
Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press CTRL+ENTER
The U.S. District Court has confirmed that artificial intelligence systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human. Writes about it The Verge.
According to Judge Leonard P. Stark, the Patent Act clearly states that only an individual can be the owner of an invention. According to the ruling of the US Supreme Court, the term “usually means a person, a person.”
“This is the case when the question of the interpretation of the law begins and ends with the simple meaning of the text […]. There is no ambiguity about this: the Patent Law requires inventors to be natural persons, that is, people, ”concluded Stark.
The decision is the latest in a series of legal battles between scientist Stephen Thaler and the US Patent Office. Since 2019, the engineer has been trying to copyright the “Recent Entry into Paradise” image on behalf of an algorithm called the Creativity Machine. Then the United States Copyright Office (USPTO) denied Thaler registration.
In 2021, the court upheld the USPTO decision. Now the federal district court has upheld the ruling once again.
Thaler and his attorney, Ryan Abbott, plan to appeal the decision, criticizing the court’s “narrow and textual approach” to the Patents Act.
“It ignores the purpose of the Patent Act and the fact that AI-assisted inventions are no longer patentable in the United States. This is a result with real negative social consequences,” said Abbott.
Recall that in February, the USPTO rejected an application to register the intellectual property of an art object created by a machine learning algorithm.
In June, the inventor demanded through the court to patent the painting generated by the AI model.
In August, representatives of business and intellectual property in the US called for a rewrite of patent laws for artificial intelligence.
Subscribe to Cryplogger news in Telegram: Cryplogger AI – all the news from the world of AI!
Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press CTRL+ENTER
