An artificial intelligence system is capable of being named as an “inventor” of patentable subject matter, according to the Federal Court’s recent decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents.[1] Subject to any appeal, this decision has salient implications for the ways in which inventorship, ownership, and inventiveness might be assessed in Australia in the future.
Key takeaways
- AI systems can be “inventors” for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990.
- AI systems cannot be the owners of patents, but a patentee can, in certain circumstances, “derive” their entitlement to a patent from an AI “inventor”.
- This differs from the position taken with respect to AI “inventors” in decisions in the UK, EU and US.
- The decision also contrasts with the legislative requirements for human authors in other areas of intellectual property in Australia, such as copyright.
- The decision may have implications for the way in which the entitlement and inventiveness of patentable subject matter are assessed in the future.
Click here to read our full analysis.
[1] Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879.
Key contacts
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.