Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

Artificial intelligence is breaking patent law

The patent system assumes that inventors are human. Inventions devised by machines require their own intellectual property law and an international treaty.
  1. Alexandra George

    1. Alexandra George is associate professor of law at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Toby Walsh

    1. Toby Walsh is professor of artificial intelligence at the University of New South Wales, Sydney; and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

Illustration showing robotic hands building a digital brain

Illustration by Ana Kova

In 2020, a machine-learning algorithm helped researchers to develop a potent antibiotic that works against many pathogens (see Nature https://doi.org/ggm2p4; 2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) is also being used to aid vaccine development, drug design, materials discovery, space technology and ship design. Within a few years, numerous inventions could involve AI. This is creating one of the biggest threats patent systems have faced.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 605, 616-618 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01391-x

References

  1. DABUS. Food Container and Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention. Patent Cooperation Treaty international application PCT/IB2019/057809 (Filed 17 September 2019).

  2. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. [2007] 569 US 576.

  3. Stanková, E. Cambridge Law J. 80, 338–365 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abbott, R. UCLA Law Rev. 66, 2–52 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler [2022] Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) 62, paras 119–120.

  6. Abbott, R. Washburn Law J. 60, 429–444 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Afshar, M. S. Hastings Sci. Technol. Law J. 13, 55–72 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim, D. GRUR Int. 69, 443–456 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schuster, W. M. Washington Lee Law Rev. 75, 1945–2004 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links