{"id":10694,"date":"2024-05-20T09:34:07","date_gmt":"2024-05-20T01:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/?p=10694"},"modified":"2024-05-20T09:34:07","modified_gmt":"2024-05-20T01:34:07","slug":"%e6%97%a5%e6%9c%ac%e4%b8%9c%e4%ba%ac%e5%9c%b0%e6%96%b9%e6%b3%95%e9%99%a2%e9%a9%b3%e5%9b%9e-ai%e5%8f%91%e6%98%8e%e4%b8%93%e5%88%a9%e7%94%b3%e8%af%b7%ef%bc%9a%e5%8f%91%e6%98%8e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/10694.html","title":{"rendered":"Japan's Tokyo District Court rejects AI "invention" patent application: inventors are limited to humans"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to NHK, on Friday, local timeJapan<\/a>Tokyo District Court Rules on Patentability of Device \"Invented\" by AI--\u00a0The court ruled that the patent should not be granted on the grounds that the inventor must be a human being.<\/span>.<\/p>\n

It has been reported that a plaintiff residing in the United States applied for a patent for a device invented by an artificial intelligence, but the name of the inventor was \"DABUS, an artificial intelligence that invented this product on its own\". The Patent Office rejected the application three years ago, stating that \"the inventor must be a human being\".Plaintiffs appealed and filed suit to set aside the decision<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\"022e8186-d19b-41d8-84e2-e0c2bca01d67.jpg@s_2w_820h_547\"<\/p>\n

Image source: Pexels<\/p>\n

In a recent decision, Tokyo District Court Presiding Judge Kijo Nakajima noted that the Basic Law of Intellectual Property defines an invention as \"Products created by human activity<\/span>\". Even globally, many countries and regions are wary of the legal interpretation of \"listing AI as an inventor\".<\/p>\n

The presiding judge also stated thatCurrent local patent laws \"do not take into account\" AI inventions.<\/span>. \"AI will bring about changes in the social and economic structure, which, as the law is currently interpreted, creates a number of problems. First and foremost, the legislation should be discussed with the expectation of reaching a conclusion as quickly as possible,\" he said, urging Congress to open a discussion on the matter.<\/p>\n

Prior to this, the UK Supreme Court had made an almost identical ruling on a similar case. As previously reported by IT Home, in December last year, an American computer scientist lost a patent application for an invention created by his artificial intelligence system. The UK Supreme Court rejected his claim thatBecause according to UK patent law, the inventor of a patent must be a natural person<\/span>The scientist's lawyers said in a statement that the ruling established that the UK Patent Act is currently \"totally unsuitable\" for protecting inventions generated by AI. In a statement, the scientist's lawyers said the ruling established that the U.K. Patent Act is currently \"wholly unsuitable\" for protecting inventions generated by AI.Therefore, it is \"totally inadequate to support\" any industry that relies on AI to develop new technologies.<\/span>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

According to NHK, on Friday, local time, the Tokyo District Court of Japan ruled on the possibility of patenting AI \u201cinvented\u201d equipment - on the ground that \u201cinventors must be human\u201d. It was reported that the plaintiffs residing in the United States had applied for patents for the self-invented equipment of artificial intelligence, the name of which was \u201cautonomous invention of the artificial intelligence of the product, DABUS\u201d. The patent office had rejected the application three years earlier, when it had made it clear that \u201cthe inventor must be human\u201d. The plaintiff contested and filed an action to set aside the decision. In its recent judgement, the Tokyo District Court, Mr. Pexels, ruled that inventions are defined in the Basic Law on Intellectual Property as \u201cproducts created by human activity\u201d. Even if it's global<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[146],"tags":[2660,226],"collection":[],"class_list":["post-10694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-2660","tag-226"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10694"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.1ai.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=10694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}