ROBOTS ARE PEOPLE TOO: INVENTORSHIP RIGHTS FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MACHINES

Authors

Brendan Morrison, Western New England University School of Law

Abstract

If Edison created an artificial intelligence machine that invented the lightbulb, would we truly view him in the same light that we do today? Thaler v. Hirshfeld and Thaler v. Vidal tackle an issue that the courts have never addressed thus far: Should artificial intelligence machines be granted inventorship credit for their original creations? Stephen Thaler, the inventor of DABUS, an artificial intelligence machine that created two of its own inventions, applied to the USPTO for those patents, listing DABUS as the inventor. The USPTO denied the application, reasoning that an inventor could only be a natural person.

Ultimately, the court agreed, holding that the legislative intent behind the word “inventor” in the Patent Act exclusively referred to human beings. Additionally, the court kicked the can down the road. It passed the responsibility onto Congress, stating that artificial intelligence technology is not yet advanced enough for this to be an issue, and when that time does come, it should be up to the legislature to determine how the inventorship issue should be resolved.

Recommended Citation

Brendan Morrison, ROBOTS ARE PEOPLE TOO: INVENTORSHIP RIGHTS FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MACHINES, 46 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 376 (2024), https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss3/6