German Federal Patent Court No 18 The trial court recently confirmed, German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) Patents cannot be granted for inventions generated by artificial intelligence［Case number: 18W (pat) 28/20］. The decision involves artificial intelligence systems Dabus (representative "A device for autonomously directing unified perception" ) . This is the latest decision to reject a patent application that could name an AI system as an inventor.

now, Germany appears to be bringing its current case law into line with that of the UK and the European Patent Office (EPO) And patent courts farther afield, such as Australia and New Zealand. South Africa is an exception, Its intellectual property office has approved Stephen．Thaler (Stephen Thaler) Patent for.

The court contrasted previous practice

But # 18 The decision of the trial chamber and 2021 The results of the hearing were inconsistent, The hearing concerned Dabus A patent by the creator Thaler for a fractal food container, namely DE1020191281202. Presiding Judge Siegfried．Hohit (Siegfried Höchst) Regulation of leadership 11 adjudication, Even if AI has identified the problem and the solution, The listed inventor must also be a natural person. But at the same time, The court noted that, Applications can include an AI system as a complement to a human inventor.

now, The first 18 Trial chamber, The method of applying to list an AI system as an inventor can be falsified information, For example, list a false inventor. however, On behalf of Thaler and Dabus The parties rejected the idea, Because including false information in a patent application can be a dangerous precedent.

though DPMA alignment 11 An appeal of the Trial Chamber's decision is currently before the German Federal Court, But don't know Dabus Whether the representative has appealed the outcome of the second application.

Dabus Bad luck in Europe

elsewhere, Thaler did not have much luck in England——Dabus The creator is already there 3 Defeated in one round. The latest blow was in 2021 years 9 month, At the time, the appeals court upheld that an inventor could only be "Natural person" , Not a machine. Thaler's argument is this, Dabus Itself should be named EP3564144 and EP3563896 The inventor and owner of, Because it was developed or "create" Patents are behind the invention of artificial intelligence devices. The final step is an appeal to the Supreme Court, The court is due to publish its results by the end of the year.

EPO Also refused to approve the fractal beverage container EP18275163 Patent No, The reason is that the inventors listed must be human, It can't be an AI machine. in EPO In a decision confirmed by the Appeals Board (Case number: J08/20) , The examiner considered the listing of AI as an inventor a violation "European Patent convention" The first 81 article, It is required that the inventor must be a person with legal status. Another controversial patent is EP18275174, It covers techniques for creating fractal light signals.

however, European patent case law is expected to adapt to the growing number of AI-related applications. Dabus May have been the beginning of much discussion around the rights of inventors. (Be compiled from www. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, 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 us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.