Ryan Abbott
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Ryan Abbott is a University of Surrey legal academic and lawyer whose work addresses artificial intelligence and intellectual property. His research and legal practice include the question of whether inventions attributed to AI systems can receive patent protection. He argued for Stephen Thaler in the U.S. Federal Circuit appeal concerning the DABUS patent applications.[1][2]
Roles and affiliations
Surrey identifies Abbott as Professor of Law and Health Sciences. His professional background includes legal practice and medicine, and his scholarship addresses technology, intellectual property and health law. He is the author of The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law, published by Cambridge University Press in 2020.[1]
Contributions and positions
AI legal neutrality
In The Reasonable Robot, Abbott proposes a principle of AI legal neutrality: legal rules should not distinguish between human and AI behavior merely because of the identity of the actor. The book considers how existing incentives and liability rules can favor or discourage automation. Its discussion includes taxation and tort liability as well as intellectual property.[3]
The proposal is an argument about how law should develop. It does not mean that AI systems currently have the legal status of human beings. In the book's tort discussion, for example, Abbott considers how safer automated performance might eventually affect the standard of reasonable care. These are prospective arguments about legal standards, not a report of a universal rule adopted by courts.[3]
DABUS and inventorship
Surrey's account of Abbott's research describes patent applications naming DABUS as an inventor and his argument that protection for AI-generated inventions could encourage innovation. In the United States, the Federal Circuit's opinion identifies Abbott as the lawyer who argued Thaler's appeal. This is a documented litigation role distinct from being the applicant or the creator of the system.[4][2]
On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit held in Thaler v. Vidal that an inventor under the Patent Act must be a natural person. It affirmed the rejection of applications naming only DABUS. The court expressly did not decide whether inventions made by human beings with AI assistance are eligible for protection. The ruling rejected the statutory argument advanced in that appeal; it did not resolve every question about AI-assisted invention.[2]
The UK Supreme Court also dismissed Thaler's appeal on December 20, 2023. It addressed the requirements of the Patents Act 1977, including the need for a human inventor and the claimed entitlement arising from ownership of DABUS. That decision must be read within its own statutory setting rather than treated as a worldwide ruling on AI.[5]
Selected works and legal records
- I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law (2016) — Boston College Law Review article; open-access journal record and download.[6]
- The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (2020) — Publisher excerpt introducing AI legal neutrality; full book bibliographic details are also listed by Surrey.[3]
- Thaler v. Vidal, Federal Circuit opinion (2022) — Primary record of an appeal Abbott argued; a court decision, not a work authored by Abbott.[2]
News and coverage
- July 8, 2021 — Reasonable robot and AI hype, ABC Radio National's Big Ideas. A recorded discussion including Abbott on AI and the law.[7]
- April 13, 2022 — Surrey's research-impact account of the AI-inventorship initiative; institutional coverage.[4]
Related articles
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 University of Surrey, Ryan Abbott, faculty profile and bibliography. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Thaler v. Vidal, No. 2021-2347, August 5, 2022, pp. 1–2, 10–11. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2020), publisher excerpt hosted by the Artificial Inventor Project. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 University of Surrey, REF 2021 case study on Ryan Abbott and AI-generated inventions, April 13, 2022. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ UK Supreme Court, Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [2023] UKSC 49, December 20, 2023. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ Ryan Abbott, I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law, 57 Boston College Law Review 1079–1126 (2016), open-access journal record. Accessed September 7, 2026.
- ↑ ABC Radio National, Big Ideas, Reasonable robot and AI hype, July 8, 2021. Accessed September 7, 2026.