AI Inventor Patent: UK Supreme Court Rules AI Cannot Be Inventor
The UK Supreme Court has handed down a unanimous ruling reaffirming that under the UK Patents Act 1977, only a natural person can be considered an "inventor." The decision marks the latest chapter in a global legal debate over whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be recognised as inventors under existing intellectual property laws.
AI Inventor Patent UK: Human Inventorship Still Required
The ruling on confirms the position previously taken by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, aligning the UK's stance with similar outcomes in the United States, Germany, and, ultimately, Australia. In each jurisdiction, courts or patent offices have rejected the notion that AI can be formally named as an inventor under current laws.
Background
The case was initiated by Dr Stephen Thaler, an AI researcher who in 2018 submitted two UK patent applications naming a machine, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), as the sole inventor. Thaler maintained that DABUS created the inventions entirely autonomously and that, as the machine's owner, he was entitled to the resulting patents.
In December 2019, the UKIPO Hearing Officer rejected the applications on two grounds:
- That DABUS, being a machine, could not qualify as an "inventor" under the Patents Act; and
- That Thaler, not being the inventor himself, had no right to apply for a patent merely by owning DABUS.
As Thaler did not name a valid human inventor or establish entitlement under the Patents Act, his applications were treated as withdrawn. After an unsuccessful series of appeals, the case reached the UK Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court considered three central legal issues:
1. Definition of "Inventor"
The Court examined the meaning of "inventor" under the Patents Act, focusing on sections 7 and 13. It concluded that the term must refer to a natural person. The Court took a textualist approach, stating that the legislative intent behind the Act presupposes human inventor ship and offers no language that extends the definition to machines or AI systems.
2. Ownership Rights via Machine Ownership
Thaler argued that, even if DABUS could not be named as inventor, he was still entitled to the patents by virtue of owning the AI. The Court rejected this claim, ruling that patent entitlement under section 7 requires a direct relationship to the invention, such as employer-employee arrangements or contractual assignments. Owning the machine that produced the invention was not sufficient.
The Court also dismissed the argument that legal doctrines like accession (which allows the owner of one object to claim ownership of new property it creates) could apply. An invention, the Court noted, is intangible and does not fit within the traditional rules of property law.
3. Procedural Consequences
As Thaler failed to meet the statutory requirements, the Court affirmed that the UKIPO was right to consider his applications as withdrawn under section 13 of the Patents Act.
Tidman Comment
The decision brings legal certainty but also highlights the limitations of current IP law in addressing AI-driven innovation. The Court's ruling was strictly confined to interpreting existing legislation, not assessing whether autonomous AI-generated inventions should be patentable in principle.
Importantly, the judgment does not prevent individuals from obtaining patents for inventions developed with the assistance of AI. If a human uses AI as a sophisticated tool in the inventive process, they may still be recognised as the inventor under current law.
As AI continues to play an increasingly prominent role in research and innovation, the broader policy question - whether and how the law should evolve to accommodate non-human inventors - remains unresolved. That discussion now lies with legislators and policymakers in the UK and internationally.
Make an Enquiry Now
For advice on AI and inventorship in patent applications in the UK, speak to one of our intellectual property experts on 0131 478 4724 or complete an Online Enquiry.
We have helped hundreds of individuals and businesses.
