Page:Thaler v. Hirshfeld.pdf/3

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

240

558 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES

Geoffrey Alex Neri, Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., United States Attorney’s Office, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants.

Mitchell Apper, Pro Se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, United States District Judge

Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which address the core issue—can an artificial intelligence machine be an “inventor” under the Patent Act? Based on the plain statutory language of the Patent Act and Federal Circuit authority, the clear answer is no. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 23] will be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 18] will be denied.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

This civil action concerns two patent applications that plaintiff Stephen Thaler (“plaintiff” or “Thaler”) filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), which were assigned U.S. Application Serial Nos. 16/524,350 (the “’350 application”) and 16/524,532 (the “’532 application”) (collectively, “the Applications”).^[2] Plaintiff filed the Applications with the USPTO on July 29, 2019. Admin-

↑ Also before the Court is a document titled as a “Motion to Take Leave to Accept Attached Amicus Curiae Memorandum Opposing MSJ” and a “Motion to Waive Fees” [Dkt. No. 27] filed pro se by Mitchell Apper (“Apper”), who “is an engineer and inventor of a portfolio of 31 inventions that make extensive use of AI and various types of machine learning and is also a registered patent practitioner.” [Dkt. No. 27] at 2. The motion will be granted and the amicus brief will be filed; however, the information in the amicus brief is not of help to the Court’s evaluation of the legal arguments in this civil action.
↑ Because the administrative proceedings with respect to the Applications were identical (including the dates on which pertinent events occurred), this Opinion treats the Applications collectively and provides citations to the administrative record that the USPTO has filed with respect to both Applications.

[1] Also before the Court is a document titled as a “Motion to Take Leave to Accept Attached Amicus Curiae Memorandum Opposing MSJ” and a “Motion to Waive Fees” [Dkt. No. 27] filed pro se by Mitchell Apper (“Apper”), who “is an engineer and inventor of a portfolio of 31 inventions that make extensive use of AI and various types of machine learning and is also a registered patent practitioner.” [Dkt. No. 27] at 2. The motion will be granted and the amicus brief will be filed; however, the information in the amicus brief is not of help to the Court’s evaluation of the legal arguments in this civil action.

[2] Because the administrative proceedings with respect to the Applications were identical (including the dates on which pertinent events occurred), this Opinion treats the Applications collectively and provides citations to the administrative record that the USPTO has filed with respect to both Applications.

[1]

[2]