(Reuters) - A recently filed lawsuit gives the federal courts a chance to weigh in on whether artificial intelligence systems qualify as inventors for purposes of patent applications.

Stephen Thaler, a scientist in Missouri, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Aug. 6, arguing it erred in rejecting two patent applications he helped file that named an AI system called DABUS as the inventor.

Arguing that the PTO's actions were not in accordance with the law, Thaler's lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the applications should be reinstated.

The PTO's position on AI-generated inventions "is anti-intellectual property and anti-business, and it puts American businesses at an international disadvantage," states Thaler's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Thaler is represented by Ryan Abbott, a U.K.-based doctor and lawyer who has written widely on AI, and Geoffrey Neri of the Los Angeles firm Brown Neri Smith & Khan.

PTO spokesman Paul Fucito declined to comment. Neri did not respond to a request for comment.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia.

DABUS, created by Thaler, is an AI system trained with general information that is capable of proposing new inventions.

DABUS' inventions include a beverage container based on fractal geometry and a light beacon that flashes in a new manner to attract attention.

Thaler and associates filed patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdiction on the beverage container and the light beacon. The applications listed DABUS as the inventor and Thaler has the owner of the patents.

The PTO rejected the applications in January, reasoning that an inventor could only be a natural person.

The agency said it was basing this view on patent statutes that refer to individuals, such as 35 U.S.C Section 101, which states: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter… may obtain a patent therefore."

The UK and European offices have also rejected the applications filed in their jurisdictions because the "inventor" was not a human.

Thaler contends there is no evidence that Congress intended to ban patents on AI-generated inventions, and that such a stance is undesirable as a matter of innovation policy.

"Allowing patents for AI-generated inventions will incentivize the development of AI capable of producing AI-generated inventions, which will ultimately promote innovation," Thaler's lawyers said.

The PTO's stance may lead to future patent applicants inaccurately listing a natural person as the inventor on AI-generated inventions, Thaler said.

"Failing to appropriately acknowledge inventive activity by AI weakens moral justifications for patents by allowing individuals to take credit for work they have not done," Thaler argued.

Kirk Hartung, a patent lawyer at McKee, Voorhees & Sease not involved in the case, said there are statutory and policy arguments supporting Thaler's lawsuit.

"I don't think it is frivolous," Hartung said, adding "there are arguments that go both ways."

The case is Thaler v. Iancu et al, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 20-cv-00903.

For Thaler: Geoffrey Neri of Brown Neri Smith & Khan

For the PTO: Not immediately available