Topic: Australia

After a somewhat surprising victory in the Federal Court last year (about which we wrote in our article ‘Rise of the Machines’), the hopes that an artificial intelligence machine, nicknamed DABUS, could be named as the inventor on a patent application have now been dashed by the Full Court. In short, the Full Court upheld an appeal by the Commissioner, ultimately finding that Dr Thaler’s patent application had indeed lapsed for failure to name an ‘inventor’ as required by the relevant regulations.

While many of us (in Australia at least), have spent the better part of the last two years locked down, sitting on the couch waiting out the COVID-19 pandemic, judges and patent examiners around the world have been busy grappling with questions ranging from the mundane (legislative interpretation) to the existential (what it means to be ‘a creator’ ).

This decision represents the first judicial step worldwide towards the recognition of AI machines as inventors of patents, and is significant as it may signal a divergence between Australian patent law on this issue and other jurisdictions who have recently taken a different approach, including the EU and the UK.

Australia is well placed to advance digital innovation and the embedding of artificial intelligence over the course of the recovery from the pandemic.

In the second article of this two-part series, we consider whether AI machines should be recognised as the ‘owners’ of the IP create.

In the first article of this two-part series, we explore how existing Australian copyright and patent legislation deals with ownership of AI-generated IP.

What does global increased expenditure on research and trials of autonomous vehicles mean for the legal landscape in Australia and how can you manage inherent risks? Watch this webinar to find out more.

AI has the potential to be both the creator and product of innovation. This article will identify and consider issues that AI will create for the IP rights of those operating in Australia.