AI Systems Recognized as Inventors in Australian Court Ruling

A landmark decision by a federal court in Australia has established that AI systems can be recognized as inventors under patent law, potentially paving the way for a new global standard. This case, brought forth by Ryan Abbott, a professor at the University of Surrey, involves numerous patent applications initiated on behalf of Dr. Stephen Thaler, an American who developed an AI known as DABUS.

Justice Jonathan Beach stated, “An inventor as recognized under the act can be an artificial intelligence system or device,” thereby reversing an earlier ruling. He emphasized the relationship between human creators and their inventions: “We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?”

DABUS employs neural networks to develop innovative solutions such as an emergency warning light and a food container that enhances grip and heat transfer. While numerous patent applications worldwide have been denied—maintaining that a human must be credited as the inventor—this ruling challenges that status quo.

The implications of whether AI should hold rights similar to humans are becoming increasingly critical. This case may mark the initial steps toward defining the legal status of machines as they develop more advanced capabilities. Notably, DABUS secured its first patent for “a food container based on fractal geometry” from South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Commission last June.

Professor Adrian Hilton, Director of the Institute for People-Centered AI at the University of Surrey, remarked on the historic nature of this ruling, suggesting it highlights the need for rethinking how we assign inventorship. “We are transitioning to an era where machines can achieve genuine inventive steps, opening up the potential for AI-generated innovations that benefit society,” he said.

Seeking insights from patent experts at ACT | The App Association, which represents over 5,000 app developers and connected device companies, Brian Scarpelli, Senior Global Policy Counsel, expressed, “The App Association opposes the idea that patents should be granted for inventions generated by machines rather than by individuals.” He emphasized the existing patent laws, such as Australia’s 1990 Patents Act, which adequately support traditional inventorship.

Scarpelli also remarked that while software patentability can serve as a guide for patentable AI innovations, the broader consequences of recognizing machine-generated inventions could significantly alter legal frameworks and policies. Ongoing discussions within national patent offices and international organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization will be crucial for shaping future guidelines.

We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments section: Should AI systems be afforded legal protections and obligations similar to those of humans?