Sci-Fi or Sci-Fact? When Fiction Threatens Patent Novelty

Introduction:

Have you ever wondered whether an entertaining sci-fi book, movie, or show like Black Mirror, with season 7 currently trending on Netflix, might have legal prior art implications on patents or patent applications. The possibility that a sci-fi story could destroy the novelty of a patentable invention is both fascinating and potentially alarming.

In UK patent law, the question is not whether the disclosure is purely fictional, but whether it is actually enabling to the extent that it may act as prior art against the patentability of an invention.

Novelty Needs More Than Imagination:

Under Section 2(2) of the UK Patents Act 1977, the state of the art comprises all matter made available to the public before the priority date, “whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, by written or oral description, by use or in any other way.” This aligns with Article 54 of the European Patent Convention.

Can a disclosure in a sci-fi show be considered prior art under the ‘any other way’ provision? Yes, but that alone probably wouldn’t destroy the novelty of an invention.

Enter Sci-Fi: Visions of the Future Without the Blueprint:

A common feature of sci-fi is its “speculative” nature. Sci-fi typically involves elements such as space exploration, advanced technology, time travel, alien life, and futuristic societies. It often blends scientific ideas with imaginative storytelling, sometimes pushing the boundaries of what is currently possible or known in the real world, in other words, it’s not usually a technical documentary. It is imaginative, creative storytelling, often filled with speculative concepts that prioritize narrative over technical feasibility.

Typically, sci-fi often introduces technologies far beyond our current capabilities, but lacks the technical detail necessary for replication. A narrative might depict a brain-computer interface that transfers consciousness, which is intriguing, but unless it discloses enough technical detail to be performed by a person skilled in the art, it is unlikely to be considered an “enabling disclosure”. Therefore, for a disclosure to anticipate the novelty of an invention, it must be enabling, a concept developed through case law.

Enabling Disclosures: Seen It, But Can’t Build It:

A useful example is Lux Traffic Controls Ltd v Pike Signals Ltd [1993] RPC 107. In this case, prototype traffic signals were tested in public, even though their internal workings were hidden within a locked container. The court held that this still amounted to a public disclosure because a skilled person could potentially deduce how the system worked from observing its operation. The judgment confirmed that a disclosure does not require anyone to have actually seen or understood the invention, provided it was accessible to the public in law and equity, also known as the ‘library principle’ as a library book is “available” even if it is not frequently loaned out. In contrast, speculative or fictional disclosures that are likely far more complex, are indeed made available, but may often lack the technical detail needed to suggest that the invention has been disclosed thereby enabling replication without undue burden.

After prior disclosure, “enablement” can be seen as a second requirement for anticipation of novelty, as held in SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC 10. The skilled person must be able to perform the invention which satisfies the requirement of disclosure. In this case, the House of Lords held that the test for enablement of a prior disclosure for the purposes of novelty is somewhat similar to enablement of a patent itself, i.e., known as sufficiency of disclosure, discussed below.

Nevertheless, Lord Hoffman further clarified that prior disclosure and enablement are distinct and the skilled person plays a different role in each:

1. Prior disclosure:
   The skilled person is taken to be trying to understand what the author meant. Their common general knowledge forms the background in construing the disclosure, with the patent being construed on similar principles.
2. Enablement:
   The skilled person is assumed to be willing to make trial and error experiments to get the invention to work, and the question is not what the skilled person would think the disclosure meant, but rather whether they would be able to work the invention.

The distinction between these legal standards, is particularly relevant when considering fictional or sci-fi disclosures. A sci-fi narrative might describe a futuristic device in broad conceptual terms, enough for a skilled person to grasp what the author intended such that the prior disclosure is met, but without sufficient technical detail to allow them to actually make it work such that enablement standard is not met.

In such cases, while the idea may be publicly disclosed, it is unlikely to be enabling because the skilled person, even with their common general knowledge and willingness to experiment, would not be able to implement the invention.

Hence, LJ Jacob stated that: “the notional skilled person (or indeed skilled team) is not a dullard but a person of ordinary skill and knowledge in the art, possessed of the common general knowledge in the field, and who is assumed to be a bit of an automaton, an android perhaps, who is capable of being told what to do and will do it, but who lacks inventive capacity”.

It follows that if arriving at the claimed invention would require imagination or creative interpretation on the part of the skilled person, then the disclosure, even if present in a sci-fi work, cannot really anticipate the invention especially if sci-fi, by its very nature, is imaginative. The notional skilled person, by contrast, is not.

This highlights how speculative works in fiction which often lack the technical specifications to allow for replication, may fall short in terms of enabling disclosure. Conversely, when filing for a patent application, an inventor would still need to describe in a clear and concise manner, their invention, to a sufficient level of detail.

Therefore, a sci-fi show may likely disclose an imaginative idea but with insufficient detail to render it an enabling disclosure to destroy the novelty of a patent application, filed subsequently, which would need to be sufficiently described.

The Beano as Prior Art:

A particularly curious example of fictional content influencing patent examination is found in UK patent application GB2117179, which concerned a signalling device for pets to announce their presence at a door. During prosecution, the UK Intellectual Property Office cited a comic strip from The Beano (issue no. 2015), where Dennis the Menace’s dog, Gnasher, uses a doorbell to gain entry.

The comic was cited to suggest that the concept had already been made available to the public, albeit in a fictional context. Remarkably, the reference even appeared on the front page of the published patent application. After examination, the patent was eventually granted.

This highlights how even works of fiction may surface as prior art if they make an idea accessible to the public. Yet, as with any citation, the key question remains whether the disclosure is sufficiently enabling for a skilled person to put the invention into practice.

Donald Duck: Fictional Fun or Prior Art?

One of the most frequently cited curiosities in patent lore involves a 1949 Donald Duck comic titled The Sunken Yacht. In this story, Donald and his nephews raise a sunken ship by feeding ping pong balls into its hull, displacing the water to make it buoyant.

Fast-forward to 1964, when Danish inventor Karl Krøyer famously employed a remarkably similar technique to salvage the Al Kuwait, a freighter that had capsized in Kuwait’s harbour with 5,000 sheep on board.

The decomposing cargo posed a serious risk to the city’s water supply, prompting Krøyer to act. He used 27 million expandable polystyrene balls, airlifted from Berlin, to refloat the vessel, a bold and ultimately successful operation that preserved much of the ship’s $2 million insured value.

The Al Kuwait salvage operation was visible, the underlying method of introducing buoyant materials via tubes was not clearly disclosed or explained at the time, and thus would not have disclosed the invention in an enabling way. Krøyer subsequently patented the method in several countries, including the UK (GB1070600) and Germany (DE1247893).

However, when Krøyer filed for a patent in the Netherlands (NL6514306), legend has it that the Dutch Patent Office objected, citing Donald Duck and The Sunken Yacht as prior art. The comic, they argued, had already made the inventive concept available to the public, not through a technical disclosure, but through a cartoon duck wielding ping pong balls. The comic does, after all, clearly depict the essential idea: introducing buoyant spheres through a tube to raise a submerged vessel.

Whether The Sunken Yacht truly satisfies the legal standard for enabling disclosure remains debatable. But the story has entered patent folklore as a vivid reminder that prior art can come from unexpected places. Public disclosures, even in the form of comics, may count, so long as they are sufficiently clear and accessible. As strange as it sounds, a cartoon panel read over breakfast might be the very thing that scuppers a real-world patent application.

Black Mirror’s Robotic Dogs: Sci-Fi Meets Reality?

In the Black Mirror episode Metalhead (Season 4, Episode 5), viewers are introduced to robotic dogs relentlessly pursuing humans in a dystopian future. These machines were likely inspired by real-world robotic development, particularly Boston Dynamics’ quadrupedal robots like BigDog and Spot®. In this case, the depiction of these robots in Metalhead draws from existing technologies, conversely to the aforementioned examples, forming a sci-fi concept following inspiration from real-world technology.

Boston Dynamics had been developing quadrupedal robots since the early 2000s, with BigDog introduced in 2005 and Spot unveiled in 2015. These robots’ patents, filed long before the airing of Black Mirror in 2017, cover aspects like balance, and control systems. While Metalhead may evoke visual and conceptual similarities, it chronologically and technically lacks the detail required to destroy the novelty of Boston Dynamics’ patents.

That said, the relatively recent concept of Atlas by Boston Dynamics, a humanoid robot, has long been explored in science fiction, notably in I, Robot, the 2004 film, based on a screen story by Jeff Vintar and Akiva Goldsman (from Vintar’s original screenplay Hardwired), which draws inspiration from Isaac Asimov’s 1950 short story collection of the same name, which featured intelligent, humanlike robots as early as the mid-20th century.

Other timeless classics also feature robots with distinct personalities, such as Johnny 5 from Short Circuit 2 (1988), memorably battered and with a leaking battery declaring: “Oscar, you will not get away…” to the tune of Bonnie Tyler’s I Need a Hero, a standout example of a humanoid robot in popular culture, long before real-world robotics caught up.

As far as patents are concerned, fictional depiction rarely affects the novelty of a real-world invention unless it provides an enabling disclosure. Fictional works rarely meet this threshold, as they focus more on narrative, an entertaining storyline, and less on the technical specifics of working an invention.

Sci-Fi and Space Travel:

The evolution of space exploration has roots in early science fiction works like Lucian of Samosata’s A True History (circa AD 160), which depicted interplanetary travel long before practical technologies such as satellites, space stations, and space exploration patents emerged after World War II.

Similarly, sci-fi concepts like the Jetsons’ flying cars have remained aspirational, with technological advances in autonomous vehicles, often stemming from ideas first envisioned in fiction. Patents related to self-driving cars, for example, show how concepts from fiction can evolve into real-world developments. This supports the idea that speculative or imaginative disclosures are not just limited for assessment as potential prior art disclosures in relation to novelty, but rather as starting points for having actually encouraged actual scientific development.

Self-Driving Cars and Bioprinting:

The concept of self-driving cars was first explored in works like Paradise and Iron and The Living Machine. While fully autonomous vehicles are still under development, the patents surrounding self-driving technologies highlight the influence of science fiction on real-world technological advances.

The idea of a self-driving vehicle predates the modern car by centuries, all the way back to the 1500s. During this time, Leonardo da Vinci sketched a design for a spring-powered, three-wheeled cart capable of moving on its own. Often cited as an early precursor to autonomous vehicles, it’s also considered one of the first robotic concepts in recorded history. However, Leonardo’s notes were not made public during his lifetime, and the schematics likely lack sufficient technical detail for a skilled person to reproduce the invention without significant effort or experimentation.

In bioprinting and cloning seen in works such as Four-Sided Triangle by William F. Temple, made into a 1953 film directed by Terence Fisher, which have become a reality, with Dolly the sheep’s cloning serving as a prime example of sci-fi driving innovation. These examples underscore how fictional concepts evolve into tangible, patentable technologies.

Touchscreens and Wearables:

Touchscreens, once envisioned in science fiction, are now commonplace through innovations like smartphones, smart watches and even in vehicle infotainment systems. A striking example of fiction influencing patent law occurred during the 2011 Apple v Samsung case. Samsung cited 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) as prior art, referencing a scene where astronauts use flat, tablet-like devices. Samsung argued that this depiction predated the iPad, challenging Apple’s patent on novelty grounds. This raised the question: can detailed science fiction, if accessible, undermine patent claims?

Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, adapted from Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, featured the sentient supercomputer HAL 9000 and anticipated future technologies, including tablet-like devices. Samsung argued that the scene, featuring tablet-like devices, demonstrated the concept was already made available to the public, predating the iPad’s release. While Samsung’s reference to the film was part of their defense, it was one of many factors in challenging Apple’s patent claims, indirectly crediting Kubrick for inspiring the tablet concept.

Legal Considerations:

While science fiction can inspire real-world innovations, IP protection naturally plays a critical role in turning ideas into tangible products. Similar to patent requirements, a fictional concept must provide sufficiency of technical detail, enablement, to be considered as prior art.

As sci-fi scripts become more advanced, it would be interesting to see whether the technical disclosures and reasoning provided for imaginative concepts in sci-fi works could give rise to a new wave of patent challenges. Could characters like Q from James Bond, casually outlining the inner workings of a compact, high-tech gadget, or Dr. Emmett Brown from Back to the Future, diagramming the principles behind the flux capacitor, start speaking with such precision that their dialogue becomes enabling to the extent it actually anticipates novelty? Could more examples emerge, similar to those involving The Beano or Donald Duck?

Even outside of sci-fi, other genre of movies such as those inspired by true stories more broadly can spark inventive thinking. For example, in Cool Runnings (1993), a Jamaican team without access to snow prepares for the Winter Olympics using a bobsled with wheels. Upon first seeing the contraption, the coach, Irving Blitzer, famously declares, “Gentlemen, this is a bobsled, sort of.” It is a scene that blends humour with ingenuity and, had the concept not already been disclosed, might well have raised interesting questions about the patentability of a bobsled with wheels, clearly disclosed with enablement, for basic bobsled training purposes.

The evolving nature of fiction and the increasing convergence of entertainment and technology could mean that the boundary between reality and fantasy continues to blur. In the future, we might just find that the next big innovation was planted in a science fiction script years ago, waiting for someone to notice it and bring it to life. Is the imagination of sci-fi screen writers converging with real-world technological development?

And who knows? Maybe, just like The Simpsons a show famous for seemingly predicting everything from smartwatches to the presidency of Donald Trump, sci-fi writers may also inadvertently drop clues for the next big technological breakthrough, long before it becomes a reality. In the world of patents, perhaps the next visionary idea will come not from a laboratory, but from a fictional animated family living in Springfield.

Sufficiency of Disclosure:

In patent law, an application must disclose an invention clearly and completely, enabling a skilled person in the field to replicate it, a concept known as “sufficiency”.

This disclosure is part of an implicit bargain: the inventor hands over their invention with a sufficient description to the Patent Office in exchange for up to 20 years of exclusivity. This period of exclusivity allows the inventor to commercialize their invention while, after the patent expires, the invention enters the public domain for anyone to use. This system ensures that while inventors are rewarded for their creativity, society ultimately benefits from the widespread dissemination of innovation.

The principle of sufficiency is enshrined in the UK Patents Act 1977, particularly under Section 14(3), which states that “The specification of an application shall disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art.”

This ensures that someone skilled in the art, using common general knowledge, can carry out the invention based on the disclosure in the application.

This requirement strikes a balance between granting exclusive rights to the inventor and ensuring that the public can benefit from the invention once the patent expires. The TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) further reinforces this sufficiency of disclosure requirement across WTO countries, specifying that the invention must be executable by someone with access to prior art and common general knowledge at the priority date.

Sci-Fi and the Enabling Requirement:

Fictional works, such as those from sci-fi series, can inspire innovation, but they may rarely provide the technical detail required for enablement, or sufficiency for a patent application.

As mentioned previously, to serve as prior art, a disclosure, whether fictional or not, must be enabling, i.e., it must allow a skilled person to work the invention without undue burden. For instance, the multi-touch interfaces in Star Trek: The Next Generation cannot be said to provide the technical specifications needed for actual real-world implementation.

For sci-fi works to invalidate a patent as a prior disclosure, they must meet the enabling requirement, just like patent applications meeting the sufficiency requirement. If a disclosure lacks enough technical substance to be enabling or practically replicated, it cannot serve as prior art.

This aligns with UK patent law, which states that for a disclosure to anticipate a patent, there must be 1. Prior disclosure; and 2. Enablement, the legal standards discussed above.

Can Sci-Fi Anticipate Novelty?

In most cases, prior disclosures in sci-fi book or movie would not normally destroy the novelty of a patent application, unless if it provides sufficient technical detail, then in which case, it could. This is because most sci-fi concepts focus more on the functionality than the technical implementation, failing to meet the enabling requirement. Wearing a costume including a cape is unlikely to give you the superpowers seen on screen, where a sci-fi script isn’t bound by physics, but it may stimulate ideas at least about some of the concepts portrayed.

If the description in a fictional work is sufficiently clear and detailed, so that a skilled person could potentially make the invention work, it could anticipate and invalidate a patent. However, most speculative fiction tends to be high-level, focusing on the idea of the technology rather than providing the specific technical details necessary for replication. Hence, vague references lacking technical detail were insufficient to anticipate a patent (Biogen Inc. v. MedeAnalytics [2021] EWCA Civ 317). For instance, Black Mirror’s robotic dogs may be inspired by real-world technology but do not typically contain enough detail to affect novelty in existing patents.

Similarly, in Lux Traffic Controls Ltd v. Pike Signals Ltd, the court emphasized that prior art must enable a skilled person to reproduce the invention. Therefore, even if prior disclosure is met, speculative or vague references such as those in sci-fi would fail to meet this enabling requirement. While fiction can inspire technological ideas, a vague description in a book or movie without specific technical details does not meet the necessary standard to destroy novelty.

Sci-Fi and Inventive Step: A Bridge Too Far?

Speculative fiction may offer rich narrative concepts, but it rarely undermines inventive step. For an invention to lack inventive step under UK or European patent law, the skilled person must be able to arrive at it based on the common general knowledge (CGK) and existing disclosures, without exercising inventive ingenuity.

Sci-fi, by contrast, often leaps beyond the CGK. It may inspire real-world innovation, but it typically does so by proposing technology unconstrained by present technical limitations.

A story might depict teleportation, consciousness uploads, or fully autonomous androids, but without grounding in established technical detail, such ideas remain too speculative to serve as a realistic prompt for a skilled person.

In this way, sci-fi underscores the very essence of inventive step: the gap between idea and implementation. Where sci-fi provides the idea, the patent system protects the implementation, the reduction to practice that the fiction skips over.

Don’t judge a book (or episode) too quickly:

Sci-fi stands for science fiction, which is a genre of speculative fiction that explores futuristic, often imaginative concepts based on science and technology.

While science fiction can spark real-world technological advancements, it may rarely meet the enablement requirement to invalidate a patent. Without this level of technical clarity, even the most imaginative sci-fi concepts cannot destroy novelty. While some ideas may inspire real-world inventions, they rarely meet the strict requirements of patent law, which demands clear, enabling disclosures to form prior art.

In most cases, sci-fi remains just that, fiction, a creative exploration of what could be, not necessarily a blueprint for what will be. However, as technology continues to evolve, it’s fascinating to think that one day, a well-crafted script might just spark the next breakthrough innovation, waiting to be realized. Ironically, we’re already seeing movies written with AI, featuring the concept of AI actors, including HBO’s Westworld, and a concept highlighted in Black Mirror: Hotel Reverie.

One might wonder if a sci-fi writer has ever considered this scenario: AI actors performing scripts written by AI, disclosing sci-fi technologies with the precision of real-world enablement, potentially laying the groundwork for future patent applications drafted by patent attorneys also assisted by AI (all to the tune of Bonnie Tyler’s I Need a Hero of course). The EPO has just announced that starting in May 2025, it will be using AI assistance with minuting oral proceedings, and we could speculative as to whether this could potentially extend to assistance with examination in the near future too.

Conclusion:

When assessing novelty, it’s probably best not to dismiss a fictional or indirect source completely. Rather, one could evaluate whether the disclosure has been made available to the public and whether it is enabling. If so, then even a futuristic tale could potentially pose a prior art problem. But in most cases, sci-fi remains just that: a story, and not necessarily a “spoiler”.

So, can science fiction anticipate novelty? Occasionally, and potentially, but probably rarely, but not never. Most fictional works captivate the imagination without enabling replication. But inventors beware: prior art doesn’t always come from a lab. Sometimes it’s hiding in plain sight, perhaps between the pages of a comic book or from a dystopian robot dog. With the emergence of AI, does the undue burden and suddenly enhanced capability of the notional skilled person require redefining?

P is for Prior Art, and while science fiction can inspire innovation, it rarely, but sometimes, provides the technical detail necessary to be cited against the novelty of a patent application. So, sit back, enjoy the show, and be inspired, without worrying about the novelty of your future patent applications being destroyed by the Borg (but worry about Gnasher, Donald Duck, and “Me Johnny, you busted”). And, if that means things go pear-shaped, then Dr. Emmett Brown’s DeLorean may be useful, and thankfully, Derice Bannock also makes a fast driver!

Don’t miss out on our engaging and insightful content! Stay updated on the latest in Intellectual Property by following our LinkedIn company page, Alphabet Intellectual Property.