Stephen L. Thaler

The decision in Stephen L. Thaler involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of an artificial intelligence (AI) machine to be recognised as an inventor for the purposes of patent law. The case was heard in the Australian Patent Office, where Dr Stephen Thaler sought to have a patent granted for an invention purportedly made by an AI machine named DABUS. The central issue before the court was whether the language of the Patents Act permitted an AI machine to be identified as the inventor in a patent application. The court examined the statutory provisions and found them to be inconsistent with the notion of an AI machine as an inventor. It was held that under the Act, a patent can only be granted to a person, which excludes non-human entities such as AI machines.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, particularly section 15(1) of the Patents Act, which outlines the conditions under which a patent may be granted. The court considered whether an AI machine could be considered the inventor under any of the subsections of section 15(1). It concluded that an AI machine could not be the inventor under section 15(1)(a) because it is not a person. Furthermore, the court found that the owner of an AI machine could not be entitled to have a patent assigned to them by the machine under section 15(1)(b) because the law does not recognise an AI machine's capacity to assign property. Additionally, the court held that deriving title from an AI inventor under section 15(1)(c) was not possible because an AI machine cannot legally transfer title to an invention. The court also explored whether an AI machine could communicate information relating to the invention for the purpose of applying for a patent and concluded that it could not, as it was inconsistent with the law that an AI machine could have a beneficial interest in a patent. The court determined that the application did not comply with the regulatory requirements and consequently lapsed.

The final orders of the court were that the patent application did not comply with the requirements of the Patents Act and Regulations and therefore lapsed. The court found that the application was invalid due to the inability to identify a person who could be granted a patent when the inventor was an AI machine. The court also noted that while it was possible to argue that an inventor could be identified, it was not possible for the applicant to be entitled to apply for a patent. The application was deemed to have lapsed under regulation 3.2C(5) of the Patents Regulations 1991, as the deficiency had not been corrected and could not be corrected.