The UK Court of Appeal has declared that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be the inventor of new patents.
Patents give the author of new invention ownership of it.
The main point of contention is whether a law intended for human inventors may be applied to robots.
The appellate court decided against Stephen Thaler, the developer of the Dabus system, who sued the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for refusing to grant his AI patents.
It's the latest decision in a long-running struggle to award machines inventor status.
In 2018, Mr. Thaler applied for two patents, one for a sort of food container and the other for a flashing light. However, he did not claim to be the inventor.
Instead, he opted to include Dabus, arguing that "through possession of the creative machine," he should be given the patent - while making it obvious that Dabus, not he, was the creator.
The IPO told Mr. Thaler that he was required to name a genuine person as the inventor, which he did not do, and the application was withdrawn as a result.
Mr. Thaler carried the matter all the way to the High Court, where he lost, and then to the Court of Appeal, where he won.
Mr. Thaler lost a similar lawsuit in the United States earlier this month while winning elsewhere.
Rights of the machine
By a two-to-one margin, the UK panel concluded that an inventor must be a genuine human person under UK law.
"Only a single individual may own rights. A computer can't do it "Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing wrote in her decision. "A patent is a legal right that can only be awarded to a single individual."
"In my judgment, it is obvious that, upon a systematic reading of the 1977 Act, only a person may be an 'inventor," wrote Lord Justice Arnold.
Lord Justice Birss, the third judge, had a different opinion. While he acknowledged that "machines are not people," he came to the conclusion that the law did not need a human to be recognized as the inventor.
"The fact that no inventor, properly so-called, can be identified simply implies that the [IPO] does not have to identify any person as the inventor on the patent," he wrote.
The IPO, on the other hand, "is not obligated to name anyone (or anything)."
He also hinted that the patent issue may have been resolved more quickly if Mr. Thaler "hadn't been such an obsessive."
"None of these difficulties would emerge if, instead of naming Dabus the inventor, he called himself," he wrote.
The appeal was dismissed, however, since Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing had the majority.
According to Diego Black of Withers & Rogers, an intellectual property legal company, the judgment "is as predicted."
"The creator, or their successor in title, usually owns the patent rights. However, if it is decided to identify the machine as an inventor, ownership of these rights will be called into doubt "He went on to clarify.
"It appears inevitable that present inventorship standards will need to be reevaluated to account for the increased role of the machine in the innovation process," he added.
However, he stated that such a move would need serious thought.
Battle on a global scale
Mr. Thaler submitted identical patent applications in numerous countries and has faced legal hurdles as a result, of an attempt to get patent rights for AI.
Some scholars feel that the legislation governing invention is antiquated and needs to be updated.
The movement has had varying degrees of success.
An Australian court ruled in July that AI systems can be recognized as the inventor for patent purposes, as a result of one of Mr. Thaler's Dabus claims. South Africa had made a similar decision just days before.
However, the United States, perhaps one of the most important markets for patents, agrees with the UK courts that inventors must be "natural people."
"As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship," wrote US District Judge Leonie M Brinkema earlier this month in upholding that ruling, writing: "As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship."
"However, that moment has not yet arrived, and if it does, Congress will have to determine how, if at all, to broaden the scope of patent law."