A lawyer said it is 'plainly ridiculous' to name AI as an inventor amid an ongoing legal battle about a patent, comparing it to giving credit to a cat

• Dr Stephen Thaler's says his AI machine invented a food container and a flashing light.
• But the patent was rejected, and in subsequent appeals judges said inventors have to be human.

A lawyer argued it is "plainly ridiculous" to classify AI as an inventor, amid an ongoing legal battle in the UK's Supreme Court, per Bloomberg.

Stuart Baran, representing the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), added "my cat Felix," "cosmic forces," or "£134.87" would "all have simply to be waved through" as patent inventors as well if it was ruled that AI could be classed as the creator of an invention, in court filings cited by The Independent.

The case was first brought forward in 2019 by Dr Stephen Thaler, who is challenging the rejection of his patent applications which named his AI machine – called DABUS – as an inventor for a food container and a flashing light.

Thaler's appeal has now risen to the top of UK legal system, having previously been dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Courts in the US, as well as the European Patent Office, have rejected identical applications.

While Thaler believes he is entitled to the patents over inventions by his AI system – of which he is the sole creator and user – judges have so far said that a human must be named as the inventor.

And the IPO's lawyer, Baran, argues that if AI can be classified as an inventor, then it could open the floodgates to let pets or nebulous ideas be listed as inventors as well.

The Supreme Court heard the case on Thursday, but Insider understands the IPO doesn't expect a decision until sometime afterwards. The ruling could have a big impact amid an increasing number of intellectual property disputes surrounding the rise of AI software.

Per Reuters, Thaler's lawyer told the Supreme Court that he is "entitled to the rights of the DABUS inventions" because there is no UK requirement that an invention "must have a human inventor to be patentable."

Following a consultation in 2021, the UK government accepts that AI-made creations can be patent-protected, although a human still qualifies as the inventor. In Thaler's previous appeals, judges interpreted the Patents Act 1977 to require an inventor to be a "natural person."

The IPO declined to comment, citing ongoing court proceedings. Thaler did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.