So, too, was DABUS’s patent application initially rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office , which concluded that the applicable U.S. patent legislation limits the definition of “inventor” to natural persons. Thaler challenged the ruling in federal district court in Virginia, which sided with the USPTO, and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent-related appeals.
The Federal Circuit also held that the patent statute requires an inventor to submit a declaration that “such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor,” and that “while we do not decide whether an AI system can form beliefs, nothing in our record shows that one can, as reflected in the fact that Thaler submitted the requisite statements himself, purportedly on DABUS’ behalf.
Likewise, the court rejected Thaler’s argument that the patent statute elsewhere uses the broader term “whoever,” noting that those contexts relate not to who made an invention but to how it was made or to who may be infringing it. Just as corporations cannot be credited as inventors, the Federal Circuit concluded, so too is AI barred from inventorship.
So what’s next? Thaler plans to petition for review from the Supreme Court, according to his attorney, Ryan Abbott, who told that the Federal Circuit decision “ignores the purpose of the Patent Act and the outcome that AI-generated inventions are now unpatentable in the United States. That is an outcome with real negative social consequences.”
Technology Technology Latest News, Technology Technology Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ForbesTech - 🏆 318. / 59 Read more »
Source: DiscoverMag - 🏆 459. / 53 Read more »