DABUS Archives

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Original, yes. Author, no: Copyright Office rejects AI authorship, but not AI-generated art

While finding that “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” satisfies the limited threshold of “originality” under Section 13, the Copyright Office held that DABUS cannot be entered as an author under Section 2(d)(vi).

Case Briefs Foreign Courts

“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”; UK SC upholds Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as ‘inventor’

The Court unanimously stated that the Comptroller was right in determining that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.

Case Briefs Foreign Courts

Everything you need to know on why AI Machine can’t be “Inventor”: US District Court rules AI still to reach sophistication to satisfy meaning of inventorship

United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia: Leonie M Brinkema, J., observed that, Congress’s use of the term “individual” in the

Case Briefs Foreign Courts

Here’s how DABUS an Artificial Intelligence System was given status of an “Inventor” | Federal Court of Australia’s exhaustive decision on whether a non-human can be named as an inventor

Federal Court of Australia: While addressing the question of whether Artificial Intelligence Systems can be an inventor for the purposes of the

Case Briefs Foreign Courts

Artificial Intelligence Machine, can it be granted a patent for its own invention?Demystifying grant of patent to Artificial Intelligence Machine

England and Wales High Court (Patents Court): Marcus Smith, J. explained exhaustively whether an ‘Artificial Intelligence Machine’ DABUS can be categorized as