A court in the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be classified as an investor under the Patent Act. This is the ruling given in connection with two patent applications filed by Stephen Thaler for an artificial intelligence machine called DABUS.
DABUS is credited as the inventor of the neural flame, which is a flash of light that flashes in a new way to attract attention, and also the fractal container, which is a beverage container based on fractal geometry. As reported from jurist.org, Stephen Thaler’s patent application was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) so that later he filed an objection on the basis that the refusal was given because it was arbitrary, changing and not in accordance with the rule of law.
Stephen argued that the patent application should not be rejected simply on the basis that no person as the original inventor can be identified as the inventor and also that the patent application for an invention made by an artificial intelligence machine should be registered that the artificial intelligence machine is the inventor, when all the criteria for inventions are already filled with artificial intelligence machines.
The court that finally rejected Stephen’s patent application stated that the existing definition states that “inventor” in accordance with the Patent Act refers to “individual” where the meaning of individual is defined as an individual person or a form of human embodiment. Furthermore, the provisions of the Patent Act also mention the party filing as himself or himself and this makes it clear that a patent can only be filed by an individual in a human sense.
However, last July a different provision occurred for DABUS, where the South Africa Patent Office had issued a patent on behalf of DABUS and was considered an inventor. Then after that, in Australia it is also recognized that non-human qualifications can be called inventors for patent registration. However, according to the provisions of United States federal law, they still consistently state that the inventor must be an individual in the form of a human embodiment.