shutterstock_325225715_jpstock
23 December 2019PatentsSarah Morgan

EPO rejects ‘AI inventor’ patent applications

Late last week, the European Patent Office (EPO) refused two patent applications that list an artificial intelligence (AI) application as the sole inventor.

After hearing the arguments of the applicant, the EPO refused the European patent applications as they don’t meet the requirement that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine.

Dabus, the AI application that is named as inventor on both of the patents, is said to have designed a type of plastic food container and a flashing beacon light.

In August, WIPR reported that a team of researchers at the University of Surrey in the UK filed patent applications in Europe, the UK and the US.

Ryan Abbott, professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey, led the team behind the patent applications in a bid to “raise awareness and effect change” in patent law.

It seems that the EPO didn’t think that the inventor of the AI Stephen Thaler’s had demonstrated how he had acquired the rights to the applications from Dabus.

Thaler initially indicated that he derived the rights to the invention from the AI inventor as the AI's employer, according to a preliminary opinion from the EPO.

However, the EPO didn’t accept this and so Thaler subsequently claimed that he was the successor in title.

The EPO stated: “Machines do not have legal personality and cannot own property. Accordingly, a machine cannot have a family name and given names, as required for designating an inventor by rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). Moreover, a machine cannot own rights to an invention and cannot transfer them within a employment relationship ... or by succession.”

In the oral arguments, held on Friday, December 20, the applicant argued that accepting AI systems as inventors would allow applicants to indicate the truthful inventor and that the EPC doesn’t specify that the inventor must be human.

But, in deciding to refuse the applications, the EPO concluded that the designations of inventor don’t meet the requirements set out by the EPC.

The EPO will publish a reasoned decision in January 2020.

In an email to WIPR, Abbott said that they were appealing the decision.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today's top stories:

ISP hit with $1bn damages in music piracy suit

American Airlines takes Delta to court over TM

Michael Jackson estate and Disney end documentary dispute

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Patents
16 October 2020   The question of who should be listed as an inventor or co-inventor on a patent comes up regularly. It is one of the more emotionally fraught issues a patent attorney may regularly face.
Patents
2 June 2020   The team pushing for IP offices to recognise artificial intelligence as an inventor on patents has appealed an adverse decision of the European Patent Office.
Patents
25 February 2021   The US Patent and Trademark Office has urged a federal court to uphold its finding that patents cannot cover inventions by artificial intelligence, and dismiss a suit challenging its position.