About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

2022 WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum

22FORUM011-j

Back

Session 2: Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom [2021]: Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2022 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 2: Patents and New Technologies

 

Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom [2021]: Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374

 

Date of judgment: September 21, 2021

Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of England and Wales

Level of the issuing authority: Appellate instance

Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)

Plaintiff: Stephen Thaler (appellant)

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs (respondent)

Keywords: Patentability, Artificial intelligence, Processing of patent applications

 

Basic facts:  The case involved whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system can and should be designated as the inventor, pursuant to Section 13(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1977, under circumstances in which the AI system is the sole and actual deviser of the invention;  and whether the AI system, and whether the patent applicant, Thaler, as the owner of the AI system, is entitled to the grant of the patents under the provisions of Section 7 of the Patents Act.  The inventions in question had been deemed to meet the requirements of patentability and there had been no objection to the granting of the patents in principle.

 

In 2018, Stephen Thaler filed two patent applications with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), giving “DABUS”, which is the name of Thaler’s artificial intelligence (AI) machine, in the section for the Family Name of the Inventor.  UKIPO decided against Thaler’s patent application, concluding that DABUS is not a person as envisaged by Sections 7 and 13 of the Patents Act and therefore did not meet the definition of “inventor”.  The failure was on two grounds: DABUS was not a person and so cannot be the inventor, and separately, Thaler was not entitled to apply for the patents. 

 

Thaler appealed the refusal to the High Court, where his appeal was dismissed.  Thaler appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

Held:  The Court of Appeal, by a majority ruling, held to dismiss the appeal. 

 

Relevant holdings in relation to patent applications naming AI machines as the inventor:  The Court of Appeal unanimously held that an inventor must be a person.  

 

The entire Court also agreed that it is not the Comptroller’s function to examine statements of inventorship and entitlement.  However, the majority of the Court noted that if the requirements imposed by Section 13(2) are not complied with, the application must be deemed withdrawn.  In a dissenting judgement, Birss LJ concluded that Thaler complied with Section 13(2) by identifying the person he believed to be the inventor and indicating the derivation of his right to be granted the patent. 

 

The majority of the Court also held that there was no rule of law that a new intangible produced by existing tangible property was the property of the owner of the tangible property, and therefore no rule that patent in an invention created by a machine was owned by the owner of the machine.

 

 

Relevant legislation:

Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Patents Act 1977