In a groundbreaking ruling, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously declared that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be named as an inventor of new products. The court's decision aligns with a similar ruling made in the United States, denying a petition from Stephen Thaler, the founder of the AI system DABUS, to recognize AI as an inventor.

Thaler had sought to register DABUS as the inventor of a food container and a flashing light beacon back in 2019. However, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected the request, citing that only humans or companies can be deemed inventors, as reported by The Guardian.

This ruling highlights the absence of laws deeming a machine as a creator. Judge David Kitchin emphasized in his judgment that the case pertains to "new and non-obvious devices and methods" as well as descriptions of ways to put them into practice, which Thaler claims were generated autonomously by DABUS.

While representatives of the UK IPO acknowledged that the Thaler case raises genuine questions about how to deal with AI-generated material, the court's decision affirms the necessity of human or corporate involvement in the inventive process.

The ruling in the UK mirrors the outcome of Thaler's appeal with the US Patent and Trademark Office, which also denied his petition to recognize AI as an inventor. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the matter unresolved in the United States as lawmakers grapple with the question of granting legal protection to art or other material produced with or by AI systems.

The denial of Thaler's petition underscores the ongoing challenges surrounding the recognition of AI as inventors and the legal framework required to address the increasing influence of AI technology. As the global legal community and lawmakers continue to navigate this complex issue, the implications of this landmark ruling from the UK Supreme Court will undoubtedly be felt in the evolving landscape of intellectual property rights.

In a world where AI capabilities continue to advance, jurisdictional decisions on the rights and limitations of AI systems are crucial to strike a balance between fostering innovation and preserving the central role of human ingenuity.