The plan opens the floodgates.

What happens if the judges rule in favor of AI? For his part, Abbott said the existing U.S. patent law could be interpreted in such a way to allow for AI as inventor. “We argue it’s critical to interpret the patent act consistently with its purpose — to promote innovation,” Abbott said. “That’s why the law should allow protection for AI-generated inventions.” “The entity that conceived of the invention is at issue in this case,” he added. “DABUS is the factual inventor of these products. We argue the factual inventor must be the legal inventor.” If the ruling allows patents on AI-generated inventions, DABUS would not be the patent holder. Thaler would hold that patent, as a machine can’t own property, Abbott said. “It’s the same way, if you own a 3D printer that makes an object for you, you own the rights to the object itself,” he said. Should the judges rule in favor of AI, “you’ll see a lot more patent filings,” Vinti said. “This could open up Pandora’s box if programmers can claim inventorship for AI.” The claim to the invention is a big deal because, recently, courts have seen many arguments about “proper inventorship,” Vinti said. “If you name the improper inventor, that patent is dead.” Anytime programmers identify themselves as an inventor, he added, “I’ll dig in and see if it was created by AI, and then you could fight over, did you really invent this or did the computer and, if so, what happens?”