Artificial Intelligence cannot be an inventor under the U. S. Laws

Recently U. S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ruled: “The computer using artificial intelligence can’t be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. Law”. This ruling was given in the first American decision that’s also an integral part of a global debate over the question ‘how to handle computer-created innovation.’

The Artificial Inventor Project is working very efficiently at a global level to get the computer listed as an inventor. This project is run by the University of Surrey Law Professor named Ryan Abbott. Abbott’s team somehow managed to enlist Imagination Engines Inc. whose founder is Stephen Thaler. This corporation was incorporated to build the machine with the sole purpose of inventions. “We respectfully disagree with the judgment and plan to appeal it,” Abbott said in an email. “We believe listing an AI as an inventor is consistent with both the language and purpose of the Patent Act.”

Brinkema cited several cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected every idea of declaring a corporation an inventor.“The unequivocal statements from the Federal Circuit that ‘inventors much are natural persons’ and ‘only natural persons can be inventors’ supports the plain meaning of ‘individual’ in the Patent Act,” the judge ruled.

Thaler created a creativity machine and gave it a name as DABUS. DABUS later invented a unique beverage container along with a device used for attracting enhanced attention. Abbott and his team acted very diligently in filing several applications in a total of 17 jurisdictions around the whole world trying their best to lis DABUS as the inventor. 

However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected all the applications on one point that they failed to list a person as an inventor. Thaler later appealed against such rejection to the district court. Abbott’s team is appealing every single decision where it lost including before the U.K. and European patent offices. The case can be reached with the name‘Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 20-903, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria)’.