Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JANUARY 2021

Thaler Vs Controller General Of Patents, Design, And Trademarks

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Explore more from Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys

The influx of AI in various businesses intricate has forced the companies to rethink the base of a business and change their attitude towards more prospective business strategy...

IndiaIntellectual Property
Saransh Chaturvedi
Saransh Chaturvedi
Author LinkedIn connections

The influx of AI in various businesses intricate has forced the companies to rethink the base of a business and change their attitude towards more prospective business strategy including innovation from AI. The Special Patent Court of High Court of England & Wales in the case of Stephen L Thaler Vs Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Mark  ([2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat)) clarified that AI cannot be granted a patent.

Brief of the case

This case is a celebrated case of the United Kingdom (‘UK'). It starts from two patent applications, GB1816909.4 and GB1818161.0, respectively filed by Thaler in his name, in the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (‘IPO') for the grant of patents. The application specifies that Thaler was not an inventor, which is possible as Section 30 of the Patents Act 1977 (‘the Act') states that the right to apply for a patent is transferable. IPO subsequently notified Thaler to file the statement of inventor-ship and the right to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2026: Enhancing Transparency And Consumer Protection In E-Commerce

The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2026 introduce significant compliance obligations for e-commerce platforms, particularly regarding the disclosure of Country of Origin and other product information. This article analyses the key amendments, their implications for manufacturers, importers, and online marketplaces, and the broader objectives of strengthening consumer protection in the digital marketplace.
IndiaConsumer Protection
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Article

Cross-Border Mould And Tooling IP : Protecting Manufacturing Assets In Outsourced Production

A comprehensive legal analysis of intellectual property ownership over moulds, tooling, CAD technical drawings, and product modifications in cross-border outsourced manufacturing. Covers supplier retention risks, unauthorised third-shift runs, ASEAN IP protection strategies for Indian OEMs, and a model supply-contract IP schedule.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys