You’re using an unsupported browser.

For the best experience browsing on FB Rice, we recommend using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Edge. This website also runs on mobile web browsers.

You can download supported browsers using one of these links:

To check what browser version you are using, visit What Is My Browser.

Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) really be recognised as an inventor? Yes, according to Justice Beach’s ruling in the Australian Federal Court on Friday 30 July. The Australian Federal Court decided that an AI machine can be recognised as an inventor for the purpose of an Australian patent application. However, Justice Beach’s ruling did not assess whether a machine can actually invent. Whether or not it is allowable to name a non-human inventor on a patent application might be considered a question of an administrative or clerical nature.

On 30th August 2021, one month on from the Australian Federal Court decision which stated 'an artificial intelligence (AI) system could be named as an inventor on a patent application' the Commissioner of Patents has appealed the decision.

We explore the two questions 'Can AI be recognised as an inventor?' and 'Can AI machines really invent?' in our insights below. Furthermore, we take a look at this in the context of inventions being created in both the life sciences and engineering space and compare several inventorship scenarios. Stay tuned - more insights to come.

To err is human, to invent need not be

Can AI be recognised as an inventor?
Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) really be recognised as an inventor? Yes, according to Justice Beach’s ruling in the Australian Federal Court on Friday 30 July. Could Australia be the world's first to recognise an AI machine ('DABUS') as an inventor?
Find out more

System.out.println(“Eureka!”)

Can AI machines really invent?
Second in our series of ‘Can AI be recognised as an inventor?’ related insights, we take a step back and ask “Can a machine actually invent?” - all this aside from posing the question on whether or not a machine should be recognised as such.
Find out more

In silico, ex machina, inventor?

AI inventorship from the perspectives of engineering and life sciences
Third in our series of ‘Can AI be recognised as an inventor?’ related insights, we explore what the law requires a human to do in order to be seen as an inventor, and look at other non-human contributions to invention. We present three scenarios of AI machine contribution and get perspectives from both the life sciences and engineering perspectives - how are such contributions treated under current law?
Find out more

When is an inventor not an inventor?

When it is an NHC…
As we come towards the end of our series of ‘Can AI be recognised as an inventor?’ related insights, we look at the approach to identifying inventorship in patent applications. Could a Non-Human Contributor (NHC) be the alternative approach?
Find out more

AI related LinkedIn poll

We put a couple of polls out to ask what our followers think about DABUS which brought back some interesting results...

Should Artificial Intelligence be able to be recognised as an inventor?

  • Yes; give credit where its due - 9%
  • No; inventors must be human - 55%
  • As a co-inventor with a human - 36%

Do you think Artificial Intelligence is capable of inventing?

  • Of course! - 30%
  • Of course not! - 18%
  • Not at this stage? - 52%
Would you like to read more?
See all our IP News & Insights
Keep up-to-date with our insights on the latest IP developments.