Page:Thaler v. Hirshfeld.pdf/3

 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.

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.

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”). Plaintiff filed the Applications with the USPTO on July 29, 2019.