People or patents, inventors or owners: why the Supreme Court decision on artificial intelligence and invention in Thaler is significant for all intellectual property

People or patents, inventors or owners: why the Supreme Court decision on artificial intelligence and invention in Thaler is significant for all intellectual property

Journal article

1 online resource (pp. 1–6)

2045-9807 (Print)
2045-9815 (Online)

Late last year, the anticipated Supreme Court judgment on the Thaler appeal1 was delivered.2 This protracted litigation concerns two patent applications3 on innovations generated by the machine entitled, so to speak, the Device and Method for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, or DABUS. In an earlier issue of QMJIP, I considered the Court of Appeal decision4 and the potentially new attention it throws upon the concept of the inventor. This litigation has continued to interest me not simply because of the wider activity around artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property; more specifically, it interests me particularly in its relationship to the wider economic discourse applied to understanding both the concept of inventor and the incentives for invention. In my earlier discussion, I noted the way in which the Court of Appeal decision potentially makes way for a clearer link between inventors and their welfare within the patent system. It was therefore with some excitement that I met the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment in December.

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property ; Volume 14, Issue 1.

[Northampton, England] : Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2024.

English

https://www.elgaronline.com/page/Conditions%20of%20use/terms-and-conditions

External Online Journals > Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property