Најди сличен содржај

UK Supreme Court finds AI is not and never was an inventor for patent purposes Hello everyone! The UK Supreme Court has ruled against granting patent rights to artificial intelligence in a case where a U.S. computer scientist sought patents for inventions created by his AI system named DABUS. Stephen Thaler's attempt to register AI-generated patents was rejected by the UK's Intellectual Property Office, stating that, under UK patent law, an inventor must be a human or a company, not a machine. The UK Supreme Court unanimously upheld the rejection, emphasizing that an inventor must be a natural person. The ruling doesn't address the broader question of patentability for technical advances powered by autonomous AI. Thaler's lawyers argue that this ruling renders UK patent law unsuitable for protecting AI-generated inventions, affecting industries relying on AI for technological advancements. Thaler faced a similar outcome in the United States earlier this year, where the Supreme Court declined to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's refusal to issue patents for AI-created inventions. The UK Supreme Court's decision aligns with similar rulings in Europe, Australia, and the U.S., providing clarity that inventors, for now, must be natural persons. #AILaw#AIInnovation#PatentLaw

🇺🇸USPTO Withdraws AI Strategy Amid Policy Shift The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has officially withdrawn its AI strategy document, published in January 2025. Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart cited that the strategy was influenced by Biden-era executive orders, which have since been rescinded by the Trump administration. The new AI policy direction focuses on deregulation and strengthening U.S. global AI dominance—though specific implementation details remain unclear. Key legal questions now come to the forefront: Will the U.S. redefine AI inventorship, potentially allowing corporations to be named as inventors? And how aggressively will the USPTO integrate AI into the patent examination process? These issues could reshape both intellectual property law and AI governance in the years ahead. #AI#PatentLaw#USPTO#AIGovernance#AIRegulation

🇺🇸USPTO Reframes AI-Assisted Invention: Human Inventorship Remains the Rule The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued new guidance confirming that AI may support invention but it cannot share or replace inventorship. The USPTO rescinded last year’s AI-specific guidelines and returned to a uniform standard: the same inventorship test applies to all inventions, regardless of whether AI was used in the process. Generative AI is now formally treated as “laboratory equipment” or any other research tool that assists a human creator, not as a co-inventor. Notably, the Office rejected the prior administration’s “joint inventorship”-based framework for determining patentability of AI-assisted inventions. Instead, examiners must ask a single question: did a natural person conceive the invention under traditional doctrine? Courts have already held that AI systems cannot receive patents, but they have not yet ruled on the boundaries of human inventorship when AI is deeply embedded in R&D. This updated guidance will likely shape that future litigation. #AIandLaw#IntellectualProperty#PatentLaw#AIRegulation#USPTO#AIGovernance

English Court of Appeal Decides Artificial Neural Network is Not Patentable In a landmark decision, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that an artificial neural network (ANN) is not patentable, reversing the High Court’s earlier decision. This decision aligns with the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) initial rejection of the patent application on the grounds of unpatentable subject matter. The case, Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825, highlighted key issues about the nature of ANNs and their patentability. The Court clarified that both hardware and software ANNs are considered computers and that their "weights and biases" are equivalent to a computer program. This means they fall under the computer program exclusion from patentability unless they can demonstrate a "technical contribution" outside the computer program itself. Importantly, the Court concluded that the training of the ANN, as part of the program's creation, does not constitute a technical contribution. Additionally, the outputs of the ANN, such as improved music recommendations, were deemed non-technical and subjective, thus not contributing to the patentability of the AI system. This decision has significant implications for the patent claims of generative AI systems, where training is a crucial part of development. #AI#PatentLaw#GenerativeAI#IntellectualProperty#TechnologyLaw#AIRegulation#UKLaw

AI vs. Patent Law: Tokyo Court Upholds Human Inventor Requirement A recent ruling by a Tokyo court reaffirmed that patents can only be granted to human inventors, not AI systems. This decision was part of a global legal case led by Professor Ryan Abbott, who sought patents for inventions created by an AI system named DABUS, developed by Stephen Thaler. The Tokyo District Court upheld Japan's Patent Office's rejection of the patent application, stating that current laws only recognize human inventors. This case highlights the ongoing debate about the role of AI in innovation and whether AI can be considered an inventor. The court's ruling emphasized the need for legislative review to address the implications of AI-generated inventions as AI continues to play a significant role in technological advancement. While South Africa has granted patents for DABUS' creations, countries like the UK, Europe, and the US are still deliberating on the legal frameworks regarding AI-generated patents. #AI#PatentLaw#TokyoCourt#Innovation#DABUS#IntellectualProperty#LegalTech