Wikipedia

Artificial Inventor Project

The Artificial Inventor Project (AIP) is a global legal initiative headed by Professor Ryan Abbott dedicated to pursuing intellectual property (IP) rights for inventions and creative works generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) systems without traditional human inventorship or authorship. The project coordinates a series of pro bono test cases worldwide, aiming to prompt law reform and public debate on how IP law should accommodate non-human creators.[1][2][3]

History

edit

In 2019, AIP filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, naming the AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), created by Stephen Thaler, as the inventor.[4]

The aim was to challenge legal norms that require inventors to be natural persons and highlight pressing policy questions about AI-generated innovation and IP regimes.[5][6]

edit

Australia

edit

In July 2021, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that AI can be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1990, ordering IP Australia to reinstate the relevant patent.[7] Though this ruling was later overturned on appeal[8] and further review denied.[9]

United Kingdom

edit

In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that AI systems cannot be legally recognized as inventors, affirming that "an inventor must be a person" under current British law.[10][11]

United States

edit

In Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021), a U.S. federal court agreed with the USPTO that inventors must be natural persons, rejecting the DABUS application and setting a precedent consistent with existing statute and administrative policy.[12][13]

European Patent Office

edit

The EPO Board of Appeal determined in 2022 that only a human inventor may be named, rendering DABUS‑based applications unacceptable.[14]

South Africa

edit

In 2021, a patent was granted listing DABUS as the inventor. As South Africa’s procedural system does not involve substantive inventorship review, the grant proceeded on formal grounds alone.[15]

Switzerland

edit

On 26 June 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), affirming that only natural persons may be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law.[16]

Criticism and impact

edit

The project has fueled substantial discourse. Critics caution that allowing AI inventorship may complicate notions of accountability and ownership. Proponents argue that legal recognition must evolve to avoid disincentivizing innovation produced by AI and to maintain honesty about the true source of invention.[17]

References

edit
  1. ^ "Research Portal". openresearch.surrey.ac.uk. Retrieved 2025-07-25.
  2. ^ "AI-Generated Output and Intellectual Property Rights: Takeaways from the Artificial Inventor Project". Social Science Research Network. SSRN 5083475.
  3. ^ Bedingfield, Will. "The Inventor Behind a Rush of AI Copyright Suits Is Trying to Show His Bot Is Sentient". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-07-25.
  4. ^ "The Artificial Inventor Project". www.wipo.int. Retrieved 2025-07-25.
  5. ^ Wilming, Martin (2024-10-09). "The 'Artificial Inventor' in Switzerland". FPC Review. Retrieved 2025-07-28.
  6. ^ https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-15-additional-resources.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  7. ^ "Can artificial intelligence be an inventor? A landmark Australian court decision says it can". ABC News. 2021-07-31. Retrieved 2025-07-29.
  8. ^ https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2021/879.html [bare URL]
  9. ^ https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2022/62.html [bare URL]
  10. ^ Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374, 21 September 2021, retrieved 2025-07-29
  11. ^ Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49, 20 December 2023, retrieved 2025-07-29
  12. ^ Porter, Jon (2020-04-29). "US patent office rules that artificial intelligence cannot be a legal inventor". The Verge. Retrieved 2025-07-29.
  13. ^ Willingham, A. J. (2020-04-30). "Artificial Intelligence can't technically invent things, says patent office". CNN. Retrieved 2025-07-29.
  14. ^ "AI cannot be named as inventor on patent applications".
  15. ^ Oriakhogba, Desmond (2021). "Dabus Gains Territory in South Africa and Australia: Revisiting the AI-Inventorship Question". South African Journal of Intellectual Property Law. 9: 87–108. doi:10.47348/SAIPL/v9/a5. S2CID 245993919. SSRN 3998162.
  16. ^ Marjanović, Petar (2025-07-04). "Schweizer Gericht urteilt: Nur Menschen können Erfinder sein". blue News (in German). Retrieved 2025-07-04.
  17. ^ "The Artificial Inventor Project and the Case for AI Inventorship" (PDF). law.wm.edu.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_Inventor_Project&oldid=1306933183"