Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Rita Matulionyte, AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?, 13 (2022) JIPITEC 99 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS? %A Matulionyte, Rita %J JIPITEC %D 2022 %V 13 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F matulionyte2022 %X The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter. %L 340 %K Artificial Intelligence %K DABUS %K Inventor %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384 %P 99-112Download
Bibtex
@Article{matulionyte2022,
author = "Matulionyte, Rita",
title = "AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2022",
volume = "13",
number = "2",
pages = "99--112",
keywords = "Artificial Intelligence; DABUS; Inventor",
abstract = "The emergence of advanced Artifi{\textlnot}cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter{\textlnot}national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re{\textlnot}cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton{\textlnot}omously invent and that such AI-generated inven{\textlnot}tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon{\textlnot}our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli{\textlnot}cation. This article challenges the decision by argu{\textlnot}ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in{\textlnot}ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus{\textlnot}sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener{\textlnot}ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex{\textlnot}panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate `AI inventors', is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor{\textlnot}tant matter.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Matulionyte, Rita PY - 2022 DA - 2022// TI - AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS? JO - JIPITEC SP - 99 EP - 112 VL - 13 IS - 2 KW - Artificial Intelligence KW - DABUS KW - Inventor AB - The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384 ID - matulionyte2022 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>matulionyte2022</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2022</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>13</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384</b:Url> <b:Pages>99-112</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Matulionyte</b:Last><b:First>Rita</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?</b:Title> <b:Comments>The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Matulionyte, R TI AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS? SO JIPITEC PY 2022 BP 99 EP 112 VL 13 IS 2 DE Artificial Intelligence; DABUS; Inventor AB The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Matulionyte</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Rita</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Artificial Intelligence</topic>
<topic>DABUS</topic>
<topic>Inventor</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>13</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<date>2022</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>99</start>
<end>112</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">matulionyte2022</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 13 (2022) 2 |
|---|---|
| Title |
AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS? (eng) |
| Author | Rita Matulionyte |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | The emergence of advanced Artifi¬cial Intelligence (AI) technologies has caused an inter¬national debate as to whether inventions generated by AI technology without human intervention should be protected under patent law and who should own them. These questions have been discussed in a re¬cent Federal Court of Australia decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. In that judgment, Beach J recognised that some AI has the ability to auton¬omously invent and that such AI-generated inven¬tions could be protected under patent law. His Hon¬our held that, in such instances, an AI system could and should be listed as an inventor in a patent appli¬cation. This article challenges the decision by argu¬ing that, even in the case of the most sophisticated AI systems, these systems are not autonomous in the inventive process as humans provide significant contributions to the very system that leads to the in¬ventive output. Secondly, I contend that the discus¬sion on the need of patent protection for AI-gener¬ated inventions (if it were possible at all) is misplaced and not sufficiently comprehensive. Finally, the ex¬panded application of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and especially s 15(1), to accommodate ‘AI inventors’, is an over-reach that is not consistent with the current law. The article recommends that the AI inventorship question should be decided not by courts, but by a policy making body and all interested stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion on this impor¬tant matter. |
| Subject | Artificial Intelligence, DABUS, Inventor |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-55384 |
