Introduction to AI in Invention
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer confined to serving as a digital assistant; it is reshaping how inventions are created. Traditionally, software adhered to strict rule-based frameworks. However, AI now has the ability to learn, adapt, and innovate independently. It plays a pivotal role in managing and safeguarding technology, and it is increasingly influential in the development of new inventions. This evolution raises an intriguing question: Can AI itself be regarded as an inventor? The DABUS case serves as a central example of this debate.
The DABUS Case: A Catalyst for Change
Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI system, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science), has been at the heart of a global legal discussion. Dr. Thaler claims DABUS autonomously created two innovative solutions: a novel design for food storage and a light-flashing device meant for emergency services. Despite the utility of these inventions, patent offices worldwide have declined to recognize DABUS as an inventor. The core issue stems from the prevailing global patent law, which insists that only humans can be named as inventors.
Legal Implications
United States
The U.S. Patent Act, specifically Title 35, defines an ‘inventor’ as an individual or group of individuals who contribute significantly to an invention. This criterion is further clarified by the Pannu factors established in the 1998 case Pannu v. Iolab Corp. Recently, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal reaffirmed that only natural persons could be inventors, stating, ‘The Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings.’
However, this ruling did not explore the patentability of inventions made with AI assistance. In response, the USPTO issued the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions. The 2024 framework suggested that outcomes assisted by AI could be protected if a human made substantial contributions, evaluated using traditional tests. The 2025 revision treats AI as a tool, similar to laboratory equipment, maintaining that a human must qualify as the inventor.
European Union
The European Patent Convention (EPC) also ties inventorship to legal personhood. In the European segment of the DABUS case, Dr. Thaler’s applications were rejected since the EPC mandates that inventors must be natural persons. The Board of Appeal, in its 2021 decision, stated, ‘A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC.’
In parallel, the European Parliament’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to regulate AI technologies, ensuring societal well-being and competitiveness while maintaining privacy and equality.
India
India’s Patents Act, 1970, similarly restricts inventorship to natural persons. Dr. Thaler’s applications for DABUS inventions in India were rejected by the Indian Patent Office, reinforcing the global stance on human-only inventorship.
Conclusion
The consensus across major jurisdictions—United States, Europe, and India—is clear: only natural human beings can be recognized as inventors. While AI systems like DABUS continue to drive innovation, they lack the legal capacity to hold inventor status. Legal systems are evolving, focusing on granting patent rights to humans who utilize AI within their creative processes. This shift underscores a global policy direction that emphasizes human involvement in the inventive process while leveraging AI’s capabilities.
About the Authors: Archana Singh is a Partner, Karmanya Singh Sareen is the Managing Partner, and Maitreyi Joshi is an Associate at Singh & Singh.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bar & Bench.
