What do an
AI machine and
a monkey have
in common?
4 It is believed that as early as the
Paleolithic period, distinguished by the
original development of stone tools
over three million years ago, mankind
has been inventing and improving. The
concept of inventing has always been
regarded as a creative mental activity
carried out by a human being. Fast
forward to the 21st century, the rapid
development in artificial intelligence
allows generative AI tools to be used
to create entirely new designs by
themselves. This raises the question,
could an AI system be named as an
inventor for a patent application?
In 2008, Dr Stephen Thaler began
experimentation on a new type
of artificial neural network called
DABUS – Device for the Autonomous
Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience.

By 2018, DABUS reportedly
conceived two inventions. Dr Thaler
filed patent applications for the
inventions naming DABUS as the sole
inventor, and the Artificial Inventor
Project was born. Patent applications
were filed in the major jurisdictions
around the world including the UK,
Europe, US and Australia causing the
respective patent offices to form a
view about who can be an inventor.

One of the inventions described
in the patent applications,
(including Australian application no.

2019363177), is directed to a food or
beverage container with a wall profile
having pits and bulges as shown in
some of the specification drawings
reproduced left. The unique profile
enables multiple containers to be
releasably coupled together without
separate fasteners. The increased
surface area is also believed to
facilitate heat transfer and grip.

In February 2021, IP Australia issued
its decision in Stephen L. Thaler
[2021] APO 5 addressing the
inventorship question. It determined
that a patent can only be granted
to a person. An AI machine is not
a person, and it is not possible
for a person to derive title to an
invention devised by a machine from
the machine as the law does not
presently recognise the capacity of
an artificial intelligence machine to
assign property.

The Delegate also considered that
since Dr Thaler asserted that he did
not devise the invention, but merely
acquired knowledge of the invention
from the AI machine, Dr Thaler
would not be the inventor.

Finally, the Delegate concluded
that the law as it currently stands in
Australia is inconsistent with an AI
Inspire March 2021
DABUS challenges current
legal principles on inventorship.