The Canadian Patent Appeal Board ruled that AI cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act and Patent Rules, rejecting Stephen Thaler’s application that listed his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor. While Thaler argued for modern interpretations of outdated laws, the Board upheld that only natural persons qualify as inventors. This decision confirms that human inventorship remains essential for patent validity in Canada, impacting future filings involving AI-generated innovations.
The Patent Appeal Board has determined that an artificial intelligence system cannot be an "inventor" within the meaning of that term under the Patent Act and Patent Rules in Thaler, Stephen L. (Re).
That should not be a contentious issue, but it's always nice to have the thing clearly settled. An applicant, Stephen Thaler, listed his AI system named "DABUS" (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) as the inventor in a patent application. DABUS purportedly "invented" a novel food and beverage container which was the subject of the patent application.
Thaler identified himself as the legal representative of the AI system, and argued that DABUS should be an eligible "inventor", raising interesting arguments that Canadian legislation may be interpreted to apply to technology that did not exist when a provision was originally enacted. For example, courts have found the Telegraph Act applies to telephones, and a fibre optic system is a "cable" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, despite the fact that neither of these technologies existed at the time the relevant provisions were enacted, and the online version of a newspaper could be considered a "newspaper" for the purposes of the Libel and Slander Act. All of this is food for thought, but not enough to convince the PTAB.
Ultimately, the PTAB concluded that "inventor" as used in the Patent Act and Patent Rules is limited to a natural person, and this patent application was refused since it did not properly name an "inventor".
For now, human inventorship is required for a valid patent application in Canada.
We help clients navigate the evolving landscape of patent law, including questions around inventorship, AI-generated innovations, and compliance with Canadian filing requirements. If you have concerns about how this decision may affect your patent strategy or upcoming applications, contact Richard Stobbe or any member of our Intellectual Property Group.
