Delhi High Court Examines AI’s Inventive Status in Patent Appeal
The Delhi High Court has recently engaged in a significant legal inquiry regarding the status of artificial intelligence (AI) as an inventor under Indian patent law. This development follows an appeal by American scientist Stephen Thaler, whose patent application was rejected after naming his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor. The case, titled Stephen Thaler Vs Assistant Controller of Patents, has raised intriguing questions about the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights.
Justice Jyoti Singh Seeks Patent Office’s Response
Justice Jyoti Singh issued a notice to the Indian Patent Office, requesting a formal response to the appeal. During the session, Advocate Ankit Sahni, representing Thaler, showcased the invention – a container with a fractal outer layer. This design allows the container to interlock with others, featuring flexible walls that expand and contract. This patent appeal marks a first in India, involving an AI-generated invention.
The DABUS System: A Revolutionary AI Inventor
DABUS, an acronym for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, autonomously generated the invention in question. The system’s design enables a food or beverage container to connect and disconnect owing to its uniquely profiled walls. Thaler asserts that DABUS must be named as the inventor to correctly attribute the source of innovation.
Grounds for Patent Application Rejection
The patent application titled “Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention” was rejected by the Patent Office on April 15. The rejection was based on three grounds: the absence of an inventive step within the nine claims, the non-recognition of DABUS as the “true and first inventor,” and issues related to the declaration of inventorship and proof of right.
Thaler’s Argument and Legal Implications
Thaler contends that the Patents Act, 1970, does not explicitly mandate that an inventor must be a natural person. He points to Section 2(1)(y) which defines the “true and first inventor” without limiting it to human inventors, excluding only the first importers and communicators from outside India.
More Read
Thaler’s appeal does not seek to grant DABUS legal personality or patent rights, but rather to recognize it as the inventor while the rights vest in Thaler as the owner. He argues that misrepresenting the inventor would lead to false declarations and potentially encourage concealing AI contributions or keeping them as trade secrets.
Future Proceedings and Legal Representation
The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again on September 18. The appeal is being pursued by a legal team from Ajay Sahni & Associates, including advocates Ajay Sahni, Ankit Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia, Mohit Maru, Tanisha Sharma, and Aparna Sharma.
