{"id":309922,"date":"2023-12-22T15:00:59","date_gmt":"2023-12-22T09:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=309922"},"modified":"2023-12-22T15:17:02","modified_gmt":"2023-12-22T09:47:02","slug":"inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"“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’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court of United Kingdom:<\/span> In a significant decision revolving around Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Patents, the Bench of Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Kitchin*<\/span>, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt and Lord Richards unanimously stated that Comptroller was right to find that DABUS (the AI machine) is not and never was an “inventor” for the purposes of Section 7 or Section 13 of the Patents Act, 1977.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the structure and content of Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act, 1977 on their own and in the context of the Act as a whole, permit only one interpretation, i.e., an inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person, and DABUS is not a person at all<\/span>, it is a machine created or generated the technical advances disclosed in the applications on its own.<\/p>\n

Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/span> This case concerns two British patent applications (the “Applications”) submitted by the appellant for two inventions that were created by an AI machine known as DABUS in the absence of a traditional human inventor. The appellant is the sole owner, creator, and user of DABUS. The applications were filed by the appellant under Patents Act 1977 (the 1977 Act). The request for grant forms which accompanied them stated that the appellant was not an inventor.<\/p>\n

The appellant was notified that he would need to file a statement of inventorship and an indication of the derivation of his right to the grant of the patents within 16 months of the filing date of the applications in accordance with section 13(2) of the 1977 Act and Rule 10(3) of the Patent Rules 2007 (“the Rules”). In response, the appellant maintained that the inventor was in each case a machine called DABUS, acting autonomously and powered by artificial intelligence (AI), and that he acquired the right to the grant of the patents by his ownership of that machine<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The appellant requested a hearing wherein he argued that the information he had provided met the requirements of the 1977 Act and the Rules. On 4-12-2019, the Hearing Officer for the Comptroller, held that DABUS could not be regarded as an inventor for the purposes of the 1977 Act, and further, that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.<\/span><\/p>\n

The High Court and the Court of Appeal by a majority, dismissed appeals against Comptroller’s decision; hence the appellant approached the Supreme Court via the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/span> While perusing the facts of the case, the Court clarified that the instant appeal concerned with the correct interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the 1977 Act to the applications made by the appellant and not with the broader question of whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI, should be patentable or not.<\/p>\n

The Court further reiterated that, “In this jurisdiction, it is not and has never been Dr Thaler’s (appellant) case that he was the inventor and used DABUS as a highly sophisticated tool. Had he done so, the outcome of these proceedings might well have been different<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court considered the following issues while deciding the appeal-<\/p>\n

The scope and meaning of “inventor” in the Patents Act, 1977 and whether it extends to AI powered machine such as DABUS:<\/p>\n

Noting that this issue has been decided against the appellant at every stage of the proceedings. The Court was of the view that position taken by the Comptroller is entirely correct.<\/p>\n

It was stated that Sections 7 and 13 of the 1977 Act, permit only one interpretation, that an inventor must be a natural person. DABUS is not a person, it is a machine and on the factual assumption underpinning these proceedings, created or generated the technical advances disclosed in the applications on its own.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Comptroller was right to decide that DABUS is not and was not the inventor of any new product or process described in the applications. Further, it is not and never was an “inventor” for the purposes of Section 7 or Section 13 of the 1977 Act.<\/p>\n

Was the appellant nevertheless the owner of any invention in any technical advance made by DABUS and entitled to apply for and obtain a patent in respect of it?<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that Section 7 of the 1977 Act confers the right to apply for and obtain a patent and it provides a complete code for that purpose. The provision requires there to be an inventor and an inventor must be a person. DABUS is not a person. Secondly, the applicant, if not the inventor, must be a person falling within one of the limbs of Section 7(2)(b) or alternatively, within Section 7(2)(c). The Court was of the view that the appellant did not satisfy any part of this carefully structured code.<\/p>\n

Was the Hearing Officer entitled to hold that the applications would be taken to be withdrawn?<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the Comptroller was entitled to hold that the appellant did not satisfy either of the requirements in Section 13(2) of the 1977 Act as he failed to identify any person or persons whom he believed to be the inventor or inventors of the inventions described in the applications; and his ownership of DABUS did not provide a proper basis for accepting his claim to be entitled to the grant of the patents for which he had applied.<\/p>\n

The Court thus concluded that the Comptroller was right to find the appellant’s applications would be taken to be withdrawn at the expiry of the sixteen-month period specified by Rule 10(3) of the 2007 Patent Rules.<\/p>\n

[Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, 2023 UKSC 49, decided on 20-12-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Lord Kitchin<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":309925,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[44629,30105,46960,33482,42200,5881,45040,29944,63779],"class_list":["post-309922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-dabus","tag-invention","tag-inventor","tag-ipr","tag-natural-person","tag-patents","tag-uk-sc"],"yoast_head":"\n“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”: UK SC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"UK SC upheld the Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as “inventor” within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"“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’\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"UK SC upheld the Comptroller\u2019s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as \u201cinventor\u201d within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-22T09:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-12-22T09:47:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"“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’\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”: UK SC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-22T09:30:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-12-22T09:47:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"UK SC upheld the Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as “inventor” within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"AI DABUS inventor\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“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’\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”: UK SC","description":"UK SC upheld the Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as “inventor” within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"“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’","og_description":"UK SC upheld the Comptroller\u2019s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as \u201cinventor\u201d within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-22T09:30:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-12-22T09:47:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"“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’","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/","name":"“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”: UK SC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp","datePublished":"2023-12-22T09:30:59+00:00","dateModified":"2023-12-22T09:47:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"UK SC upheld the Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as “inventor” within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"AI DABUS inventor"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/inventor-artifical-intelligence-patents-act-1977-dabus-nautral-person-uk-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“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’"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AI-DABUS-inventor.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":253878,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/09\/ai-machines-cannot-be-inventors\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":0},"title":"Artificial Intelligence Machine, can it be granted a patent for its own invention?Demystifying grant of patent to Artificial Intelligence Machine","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"England and Wales High Court (Patents Court): Marcus Smith, J. explained exhaustively whether an \u2018Artificial Intelligence Machine\u2019 DABUS can be categorized as an inventor and granted patent or not. \u201cmerely inventing something does not result in a patent being granted to the inventor.\u201d Appellant had filed two applications in his\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241342,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/26\/the-curious-case-of-dabus-who-should-own-the-ai-related-inventions\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":1},"title":"The Curious Case of Dabus: Who should own the AI-Related inventions?\u00a0\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Saransh Chaturvedi*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/dabus.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/dabus.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/dabus.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/dabus.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/dabus.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254128,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/13\/dabus-an-artificial-intelligence-system\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":2},"title":"Here\u2019s how DABUS an Artificial Intelligence System was given status of an \u201cInventor\u201d | Federal Court of Australia\u2019s exhaustive decision on whether a non-human can be named as an inventor","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Federal Court of Australia: While addressing the question of whether Artificial Intelligence Systems can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patent Act 1990 (Cth), Beach J, expressed that: If the output of an artificial intelligence system is said to be the invention, who is the inventor? And if\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Federal-Court-of-Australia.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Federal-Court-of-Australia.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Federal-Court-of-Australia.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Federal-Court-of-Australia.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Federal-Court-of-Australia.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254193,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/15\/artificial-intelligence-machine\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":3},"title":"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","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia: Leonie M Brinkema, J., observed that, Congress's use of the term \"individual\" in the Patent Act strengthens the conclusion that an \"inventor\" must be a natural person. \u201cAs technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222814,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/04\/uk-sc-compensation-of-2-million-awarded-to-inventor-of-glucose-testing-kit-holding-that-patent-covering-technology-was-of-outstanding-benefit-to-his-employer\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":4},"title":"UK SC | Compensation of \u00a32 million awarded to inventor of glucose testing kit, holding that patent covering technology was of \u201coutstanding benefit\u201d to his employer","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom: Full Bench of Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Kitchin, JJ., examined the considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether it is appropriate to award compensation to an employee for an invention made during employment. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":231482,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/27\/uk-sc-application-of-sufficiency-requirement-is-the-bedrock-of-patent-law-hence-its-diluted-interpretation-would-tilt-the-balance-in-favour-of-patentees-and-against-the-public\/","url_meta":{"origin":309922,"position":5},"title":"UK SC | Application of \u2018sufficiency requirement\u2019 is the bedrock of Patent Law; hence its diluted interpretation would tilt the balance in favour of patentees and against the public","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom: While deciding the instant appeal which challenged the validity of two patents seeking monopoly over the creation of a range of different types of transgenic mouse, the 5 Judge Bench of Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Sales, with a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309922\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/309925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}