From Thaler v. Vidal, determined right now by the Federal Circuit (Decide
Tony Leonard Stark, joined by Chief Decide Kimberly Moore and Decide Richard Taranto):
This case presents the query of who, or what, may be an inventor. Particularly, we’re requested to resolve if a man-made intelligence (AI) software program system may be listed because the inventor on a patent utility. At first, it may appear that resolving this problem would contain an summary inquiry into the character of invention or the rights, if any, of AI techniques. In reality, nevertheless, we don’t must ponder these metaphysical issues. As an alternative, our activity begins—and ends—with consideration of the relevant definition within the related statute.
The US Patent and Trademark Workplace (PTO) undertook the identical evaluation and concluded that the Patent Act defines “inventor” as restricted to pure individuals; that’s, human beings. Accordingly, the PTO denied Stephen Thaler’s patent purposes, which did not listing any human as an inventor. Thaler challenged that conclusion within the U.S. District Court docket for the Jap District of Virginia, which agreed with the PTO and granted it abstract judgment. We, too, conclude that the Patent Act requires an “inventor” to be a pure individual and, due to this fact, affirm.
Due to Spencer Gibbs for the pointer.