AI Inventorship on the Horizon: Part 3

In Part 1 of this blog post series, we looked at DABUS, an artificial intelligence machine, and the treatment of AI-conceived inventions by various patent offices. In Part 2, we considered an Australian Federal Court judgement that accepted that an AI could be an inventor, and compared it with decisions (and related court appeals) reached by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which found that AI could not be named the inventor on a patent.

In this last instalment, we consider the policy and legal implications of permitting or prohibiting AI to be an inventor, with a focus on the Canadian context.