The governance implications of AI inventorship: Lessons from the DABUS case

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly become integral to our daily lives, driving innovation across various industries. A recent court case involving Dr Stephen Thaler's AI creation, DABUS, and its potential recognition as an inventor in New Zealand, has raised essential questions for directors and boards regarding the governance implications of AI inventorship. This article discusses the impact of the court's decision on corporate governance and offers insights for directors and boards navigating the evolving landscape of AI and intellectual property (IP) law.

The DABUS case

DABUS, an AI created by Dr. Thaler, autonomously designed a novel food container with interlocking capabilities. Dr. Thaler applied for patents in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand, listing DABUS as the inventor. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Patents in New Zealand refused the application, arguing that only humans can be inventors. Similar decisions were reached in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States.

The New Zealand Patents Act 2013, passed when AI technology was known, contains provisions that could potentially accommodate AI inventorship. However, the Court ultimately determined that the Act's purpose did not include AI inventorship and that such a decision should be reserved for Parliament.

Governance implications for directors and boards

There are a number of governance implications from this judgement that directors and boards should consider:

• Monitoring legislative and regulatory developments: The DABUS case highlights the importance of staying informed about legislative changes and regulatory developments that may impact AI and IP laws. Directors and boards should monitor these developments to ensure their organisations remain compliant and are prepared for potential shifts in policy.
• Re-evaluating IP strategies: As AI technology advances and continues to play a more significant role in innovation, organisations may need to re-evaluate their IP strategies to address the possibility of AI-generated inventions. Directors and boards should work with legal counsel to assess IP portfolios and identify potential gaps or vulnerabilities.
• Assessing ethical and social implications: The debate over AI inventorship raises ethical and social questions about the role of AI in the creative process and the potential consequences of granting legal rights to non-human entities. Directors and boards should engage in discussions about these issues and consider how their organisations’ policies and practices align with broader societal values.
• Fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration: The DABUS case underscores the importance of encouraging collaboration between humans and AI systems in the innovation process. Directors and boards should promote a culture of innovation that embraces AI technology while still recognising and rewarding the contributions of human inventors.

Conclusion

The DABUS case has brought the governance implications of AI inventorship to the forefront, forcing directors and boards to consider the potential impact of recognising AI-generated inventions. By monitoring legislative developments, re-evaluating IP strategies, assessing ethical and social implications, and fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration, directors and boards can navigate the complex landscape of AI and IP law and ensure their organisations remain adaptable and resilient in the face of emerging challenges.