The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an agency of the Department of Commerce, announced new guidelines before the holiday weekend meant to clarify when inventions that are developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence can be legally patented. The agency defines generative AI systems to be “analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process,” explained USPTO Director John Squires. According to the updated guidelines, AI systems “may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention.” Continue reading Patent Office Updates Guidelines for Inventions Created by AI

U.S. District judge Leonie Brinkema just ruled that an artificial intelligence-enabled computer cannot be listed as an inventor on patents and that only humans can be inventors under U.S. law. That’s because, according to Federal law, an “individual” must take an oath that he/she is the inventor and the term “individual” is legally defined as a natural person. The ruling was in response to University of Surrey law professor Ryan Abbott’s effort, the Artificial Inventor Project, to get a computer listed as an inventor. Continue reading Federal Judge Rules AI-Enabled Machines Are Not Inventors

Under the Patents Act, a UK court ruled that creator Stephen Thaler’s “Creativity Machine” called DABUS could not be an inventor. Thaler appealed, and the UK’s High Court dismissed it, saying an inventor must be a person and not a machine. Thaler, however, insists that DABUS is “fundamentally different from other AI systems,” noting that, via “simple learning rules” it combines “swarms of many artificial neural nets, each containing interrelated patterns spanning some conceptual space … with no predetermined objective.” Continue reading UK High Court Dismisses Appeal to Classify AI as an Inventor