3 month 2 day, Computer scientist Steven．Taylor (Stephen Thaler) s lawyers told the UK Supreme Court, UK patent law already allows AI tools to be named as inventors.

Of the Supreme Court of England 5 At the center of the legal dispute before a panel of judges, Will artificial intelligence tools DABUS Listed as the inventor 2 Whether a patent application should be granted.

The cause of the appeal DABUS Taylor, its creator. Taylor says the AI system invented a food storage system on its own.

UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) British patent law requires the inventor to be "Natural person" or "Legal person" On the grounds that Taylor's patent application was rejected.

But Taylor's lawyer told the Supreme Court, The law only requires applicants to identify who they believe is the true inventor.

Ryan, a professor at the University of Surrey who has been speaking for Taylor in the case．Abbott (Ryan Abbott) And law partner Robert E．Jehan (Robert Jehan) It's Taylor's lawyer.

The lawyer said, Taylor's claim that there was no human inventor satisfied the British "Patent law" request.

A former intellectual property lawyer, Current Justice David J．Kitchen (David Kitchin) Asked the lawyer repeatedly why Taylor didn't name himself as the inventor, This may mean that the patent is licensed.

Mr Abbott replied, It is dishonest of Taylor to list himself as the inventor, Because he was not the actual designer of the technology as defined by British law.

He said: "It can be stubborn to some people, To others it was just Taylor stating his scientific beliefs, There is no inventor. "

UKIPO s managing counsel, Stuart．Balan (Stuart Baran) According to, Many of Taylor's arguments involve what does he think the law should be, Rather than what the statute requires.

He said: "Parliament was wary of concentrating its statutes on natural persons. "

Toby．Bond (Toby Bond) He was one of the observers at the trial.

He was out of court "Intellectual property management" The magazine says, These arguments go to fundamental points about the purpose of the patent system.

He indicated: "The justices clearly understood the importance of the decision they had to make. "

The trial is over, It is awaiting a ruling. (Compiled from www. managingip. com)

translation: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original article from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This network will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.