L’intelligenza artificiale DABUS del dr. Thaler non può essere inventore secondo il patent act inglese

La Supreme Court con sentenza 20 dicembre 2023 ne caso [2023] UKSC 49 , Thaler v. Comptroller dell’Ufficio (v. qui pure il Press Summary) conferma che DABUS non può essere titolare delle invenzini, non potendo qualificarsi come “inventor”.

A cascata, nemmeno dr. Thaler può esserlo. A parte ciò, nemmeno può vantare in titolo di acquisto derivativo da chicchessia, secondo la dettagliatqa formulazine della legge UK.

<<In my judgment, the position taken by the Comptroller on this issue is entirely correct. The structure and content of sections 7 and 13 of the Act, on their own and in the context of the Act as a whole, permit only one interpretation: an inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person, and DABUS is not a person at all, let alone a natural person: it is a machine and on the factual assumption underpinning these proceedings, created or generated the technical advances disclosed in the applications on its own. Here I use the term “technical advance” rather than “invention”, and the terms “create” or “generate” rather than “devise” or “invent” deliberately to avoid prejudging the first issue we have to decide. But it is indisputable that DABUS is a machine, not a person (whether natural or legal), and I do not understand Dr Thaler to suggest otherwise.

Section 130 of the 1977 Act provides that the term “inventor” has the meaning ascribed to it by section 7. As we have seen, section 7(3) provides that “inventor” in relation to an invention means the actual deviser of the invention. There is no suggestion that “deviser” here has anything other than its ordinary meaning, that is to say, a person who devises a new and non-obvious product or process (the invention) which is capable of industrial application and may be protected under the patent system.

This interpretation is also consistent with the scheme of section 7 to which I have already referred. Hence an application for a patent may be made by any person (section 7(1)). And there is a rebuttable presumption that the person making the application is entitled to be granted the patent (section 7(4)).

A patent may be granted only to a person falling in one of the three categories of persons set out in section 7(2), however. The primary person to whom a patent may be granted is the inventor (section 7(2)(a)). But in preference to the inventor, it may be granted to a person or persons mentioned in section 7(2)(b), or to the successor or successors in title of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) (section 7(2)(c)) – again being persons with legal personality, although not necessarily natural persons – for they may include, for example, a corporate employer>> (§§ 56-59).

(notizia e link di Henry P Yang su IPKat)

Anche da noi il cpi menziona l'<inventore> e l'<autore dell’invenzione> (art. 62-63-64 e spt. il 63.2, 83, 160.3.c) etc.)