The recent decision in Thaler v. Vidal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has significant implications for the patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. The court ruled that AI systems cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications, as the U.S. Patent Act limits inventorship to natural persons. This decision aligns with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) guidance, which emphasizes that while AI can assist in the development of inventions, only human beings can be named as inventors on U.S. patents.
The USPTO's guidance, which came into effect on February 13, 2024, clarifies that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable. It provides instructions to examiners and applicants on determining the correct inventor(s) to be named in a patent or patent application for inventions created by humans with the assistance of one or more AI systems. The guidance states that patent protection may be sought for inventions in which a human provided a significant contribution to the invention. However, it also emphasizes that simply using an AI system does not automatically qualify a person as an inventor. The person using the AI must have contributed significantly to the invention's conception.
This decision and guidance reflect a broader consensus that existing patent laws are not equipped to handle AI-generated inventions. While AI cannot be listed as an inventor, AI-related inventions are patentable as long as they are attributed to human inventors, and the human contributors have made significant contributions to the invention. The USPTO's guidance aims to strike a balance between awarding patent protection to promote human ingenuity and investment for AI-assisted inventions while not unnecessarily locking up innovation for future developments.
The decision in Thaler v. Vidal and the USPTO's guidance have significant implications for the patentability of AI-related inventions, emphasizing the importance of human ingenuity and investment in AI-assisted inventions while ensuring that innovation is not unnecessarily restricted. This is an important development in the intersection of AI and patent law, and it has sparked discussions about the need for new policies to address the challenges posed by AI-generated inventions.
