Key Facts
- •Dr. Thaler applied for patents for inventions he claimed were made by DABUS, an AI machine.
- •Dr. Thaler claimed ownership of DABUS as the basis for his patent applications.
- •The applications did not identify a human inventor.
- •The UKIPO rejected the applications for failure to identify a human inventor and adequately explain the derivation of Dr. Thaler's right to apply for the patents.
- •The High Court and Court of Appeal (majority) upheld the UKIPO's decision.
- •This appeal concerns the interpretation of sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act 1977.
Legal Principles
An inventor under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person.
Patents Act 1977, sections 7(3) and 13
Section 7 of the 1977 Act provides an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to a patent grant; only the inventor or someone claiming through the inventor is eligible.
Patents Act 1977, section 7
Section 13 of the 1977 Act requires applicants to identify the inventor(s) and explain how they derive their right to apply if they are not the inventor; failure results in application withdrawal.
Patents Act 1977, section 13
The doctrine of accession does not apply to confer ownership of an invention created by a machine on the machine's owner.
Court of Appeal judgment and Supreme Court reasoning
Outcomes
The Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Thaler's appeal.
Dr. Thaler failed to satisfy the requirements of sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act 1977. DABUS, as a machine, cannot be an inventor, and Dr. Thaler did not establish a legal basis for claiming entitlement to the patents based solely on his ownership of DABUS.