Thaler v Comptroller [2023] UKSC 49: the UKSC rules that AI cannot be an 'inventor'
英國最高法院判決人工智能不得為發明人。

To the surprise of no one, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has finally ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor for the purposes of UK patent law. This judgment accords with the decisions of the lower courts in the UK and the initial ruling of the UKIPO. It also reflects similar findings from most of courts around the world where the claimant, Dr Thaler, brought similar actions.
不令人意外地，英國最高法院基於專利法之立法目的判決人工智能不得為發明人。該判決與英國下級法院及英國智慧財產局的見解一致，其反映出此與世界上絕大部分法院的判決結果接近。此案係由原告Thaler博士提起訴訟。

The UKSC has held:該判決之重點如下：

1. An 'inventor' within the meaning of the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. Dr Thaler's AI, Dabus, is not a person at all, let alone a natural person
   1977年專利法之發明人定義係自然人。Thaler Dabus人工智能博士非自然人，與定義的自然人相去甚遠。
2. There was, as such, no 'inventor' through whom Dr Thaler could claim any right to obtain a patent, and the fact that Dr Thaler was Dabus' owner did not assist him
3. The Hearing Officer for the comptroller was entitled to hold that Dr Thaler's patent applications were taken to be withdrawn for failure to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Act
   聽證官有權就Thaler博士之專利申請案以未符合專利法之專利要件而駁回其申請。