AI-Generated Inventions: Who Owns the Rights?– Explore the latest developments in AI and patent law, including recent court decisions and global trends in granting patents for AI-assisted inventions.
The rise of artificial intelligence is reshaping everything—from how we work to how we create. One of the most provocative questions in this new era is: Who owns the rights to inventions created by AI? As machine learning models grow more capable of generating novel ideas, code, designs, and even physical inventions, legal systems worldwide are grappling with a fundamental issue: Can AI be considered an inventor?
The Patent System Meets Artificial Intelligence
Traditionally, patent law has been built around human inventors. To file a patent, one must list a natural person responsible for the inventive step. But as AI systems like GPT-4, DALL·E, and other generative tools begin to contribute to or wholly create inventions, the lines blur.
Enter DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), an AI created by Dr. Stephen Thaler. In multiple countries, Dr. Thaler filed patents naming DABUS as the inventor. The reaction? Mixed.
Landmark Legal Decisions
- United States: In 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the DABUS patent application, stating that under current law, only natural persons can be inventors. The decision was upheld in federal court in 2022.
- European Union: The European Patent Office (EPO) also rejected the DABUS applications on similar grounds, reinforcing the view that inventorship must lie with a human.
- United Kingdom: The UK Supreme Court ruled in late 2023 that while AI can assist in invention, only humans can be legally named as inventors on a patent application. The court emphasized that patent rights are intrinsically tied to human agency and accountability.
- South Africa and Australia: Bucking the trend, South Africa became the first country to grant a patent listing an AI (DABUS) as the inventor. Australia briefly followed suit in a 2021 federal court decision, although this was later overturned on appeal.
Global Trends and Policy Debates
These cases have ignited a global debate on how (or whether) to reform intellectual property laws to account for AI-assisted invention. Some experts argue for new categories of rights that reflect the collaborative role of AI, while others warn against granting legal personhood or recognition to machines.
At the heart of the issue lies a tension between:
- Innovation incentives: Patents are meant to reward and encourage innovation. If AI systems are driving invention, who should benefit?
- Accountability and ownership: If no human can be held responsible for an AI-generated invention, how do we enforce rights, resolve disputes, or assign liability?
The Road Ahead
While most legal systems still require human inventorship, discussions are underway about the future of patent law in the AI era. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been hosting forums to explore international consensus. Meanwhile, companies are updating internal policies to clarify ownership of AI-assisted creations.
In the short term, human oversight and involvement in the invention process will likely remain essential for securing patents. But in the long term, the law may evolve—just as it did for software, biotech, and other disruptive technologies.
Final Thoughts
AI-generated inventions challenge long-standing assumptions about creativity, authorship, and ownership. As AI continues to push the boundaries of what’s possible, the legal world must catch up. The question isn’t just who owns the rights to an AI-generated invention—it’s what we, as a society, want innovation to look like in the age of artificial intelligence.