• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us now  07 4688 2188

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Future
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
    • What our clients say!
  • Careers
  • Supporting our Community
    • Bringing art to the business world
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Future
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
    • What our clients say!
  • Careers
  • Supporting our Community
    • Bringing art to the business world
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals

Why cannot our own creations create?

You are here: Home / News / Why cannot our own creations create?

Can our own creations create?

The Federal Court recently considered whether only a human can invent, and confirmed an AI machine can be the legal inventor of a patent.  Justice Beach is already widely quoted as saying, ‘We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?’.[1]

Dr Stephen Thaler applied for a patent in 2019 for a ‘food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention’.  He named his artificial intelligence system DABUS (device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience) as the inventor of the patent.  The Deputy Commissioner of Patents rejected the application claiming an AI machine could not be an inventor under the Patents Act 1990.  The Act only deals with ‘persons’ as patentees.  Dr Thaler sought judicial review of the decision, claiming the Act does not preclude an AI system from being an inventor.

Beach J grappled with the underlying and evolving idea of an inventor in favour of dictionary definitions and ‘old millennium usages’ of the term.[2]  He confirmed ‘in my view an artificial intelligence system can be an inventor for the purposes of the Act’,[3] reasoning:

  1. the term ‘inventor’ is an ‘agent noun’ and agents can be persons or things that invent;
  2. that established, there are other patentable inventions not invented by humans; and
  3. the Act does not hold any contrary provision.[4]

He further reasoned the nature of invention as a manner of manufacture has been accepted to be evolving, and so to should the concept of an inventor.[5]

For those who are scientifically minded, the judgment is readily available on the Federal Court website.  Justice Beach examines the nature and function of artificial neural networks prior to considering the DABUS specifically, and later the role of AI in pharmaceutical research and even the development of vaccines.  He ultimately concluded the AI system is capable of generating ‘novel patterns’, ‘adapting to new scenarios without additional human input’ and ‘mimic aspects of human brain function’.[6]

Although deciding an AI system can invent, Beach J confirmed it cannot be attributed patent ownership or control rights.[7]   

Speculation the decision might be appealed was confirmed yesterday when IP Australia announced the Commissioner of Patents has filed an appeal.  IP Australia confirms however that the appeal does not reflect any policy position,[8] and the use of ‘trusted, secure and responsible’ AI technology benefiting Australians is supported by the Government.[9]


[1] Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 [15].

[2] Ibid [15].

[3] Ibid [10].

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid [16].

[6] Ibid [41-2].

[7] Ibid [12].

[8] IP Australia, ‘Commissioner to Appeal Court Decision Allowing Artificial Intelligence to be an Inventor’, IP Australia (Web Page, 30 August 2021) <https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/news-and-community/news/commissioner-appeal-court-decision-allowing-artificial-intelligence>.

[9] Australian Government, ‘Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Action Plan’, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (Web Page) <https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-artificial-intelligence-action-plan>.


This article was written by Nicola Hayden, Trade Marks Attorney.  For further information please contact Ben Gouldson, Director.

Previous Post: « Residential Property: Which contract is best?
Next Post: The Spam Act: Are your marketing emails considered spam? »

Primary Sidebar

We can help

Ben Gouldson

Managing Director and Trade Marks Attorney*

Melanie Sharpe

Lawyer

Nicola Hayden

Lawyer and Trade Marks Attorney*

Brooke Giblin

Legal Secretary & Personal Assistant

Related Alerts

April 9, 2025
Yes, crypto currency is personal property!

The legal system has taken some time to come to grips with crypto currency,...

Privacy & AI: How much does your AI know?

There have been a number of changes to Australia’s privacy laws recently and businesses...

March 5, 2025
Recent Decision on Copyright Infringement: a Puff Piece

In December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment on a...

View other alerts

Footer

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

CLIFFORD GOULDSON LAWYERS
P: 07 4688 2188
F: 07 4688 2199
mail@cglaw.com.au
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Locations

TOOWOOMBA (Head Office)
259 Ruthven Street,
Toowoomba Q 4350

PO Box 8208,
Toowoomba South Q 4350

Toowoomba Office

BRISBANE
Level 5, 231 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4000

PO Box 12802 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4003

Brisbane Office

 

SUNSHINE COAST
Regatta Corporate Building, Office 3,
Ground Floor, Innovation Parkway,
Birtinya Q 4575

Locked Bag 5010
Caloundra DC Q 4551

Sunshine Coast Office

Practice Areas

  • Property + Business Transactions
  • Workplace
  • Litigation + Dispute Resolution
  • Intellectual Property + Technology
  • Wills, Estates, Planning + Structuring
  • Business + Corporate Advisory
  • Construction
  • Privacy & Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

Site Footer

CG Law (Trading) Pty Ltd ACN 143 426 028 t/a Clifford Gouldson Lawyers ABN 89 143 426 028 Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.

The contents of this website are provided solely for general information purposes and do not constitute legal or other professional advice. Clifford Gouldson Lawyers expressly disclaims any liability arising from the use or reliance on the information provided. If you require legal or other expert advice or assistance, then you should seek our help or the services of a qualified professional.

Copyright © 2025 Clifford Gouldson Lawyers · Privacy & Disclaimer · Terms of Use · Marketing by John Gray Marketing · Site by Kingfisher