This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
Asset 3
  • About
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • Careers
  • Public Interest
  • Inclusion
  • Contact us
    Contact us
  • Locations
    Locations
  • Search
    Search
  • About
    • About
    • Message From the CEO
    • Firm History
    • Alumni
    • Alumni
    • In Memoriam
  • People
  • Capabilities
    • Practices
    • Industries
    • Global Reach: The Law Firm Network
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Transactions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Investment Management 
    • Life Sciences
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Bankruptcy Litigation
    • Mass Torts Bankruptcy
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Patents
    • Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Civil Fraud Litigation
    • Employment Practices and Litigation
    • Government Contracts Litigation
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Insurance Recovery
    • Litigation Funding
    • M&A and Private Equity Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • UK Tax Controversy & Litigation
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Distressed Debt & Claims Trading
    • Litigation Funding
    • Finance
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Transactions
    • Capital Markets
    • Cross-Border Transactions
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Employment
    • Finance
    • Franchising
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Economic Sanctions & Export Controls
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Energy
    • Energy Transition
    • Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Sports
    • Investment Management
    • Fund Formation
    • Private Equity Transactions
    • Distressed Debt
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Family-Owned & Closely Held Businesses
    • Private Equity Litigation
    • Life Sciences
    • BR BioAdvisory Services
    • Technology
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
    • Digital Commerce
    • Fintech
    • Real Estate
    • Hospitality & Leisure
    • Distressed Real Estate
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Wireless Network Infrastructure
  • Insights
    • Client News
    • Firm News
    • Briefings
    • Events
  • Careers
    • Experienced Lawyers
    • U.S. Law Students
    • London Trainee Program
    • Business Professionals
    • Professional Development
  • Public Interest
    • Brown Rudnick Charitable Foundation
    • Pro Bono & Community Service
  • Inclusion
    • Inclusion
    • Women in Business Series
  • Contact Us
  • Location
  • Search
  • About
    • About
    • Message From the CEO
    • Firm History
    • Alumni
    • Alumni
    • In Memoriam
  • People
  • Capabilities
    • Practices
    • Industries
    • Global Reach: The Law Firm Network
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Transactions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Investment Management 
    • Life Sciences
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Bankruptcy Litigation
    • Mass Torts Bankruptcy
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Patents
    • Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Civil Fraud Litigation
    • Employment Practices and Litigation
    • Government Contracts Litigation
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Insurance Recovery
    • Litigation Funding
    • M&A and Private Equity Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • UK Tax Controversy & Litigation
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Distressed Debt & Claims Trading
    • Litigation Funding
    • Finance
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Transactions
    • Capital Markets
    • Cross-Border Transactions
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Employment
    • Finance
    • Franchising
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Economic Sanctions & Export Controls
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Energy
    • Energy Transition
    • Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Sports
    • Investment Management
    • Fund Formation
    • Private Equity Transactions
    • Distressed Debt
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Family-Owned & Closely Held Businesses
    • Private Equity Litigation
    • Life Sciences
    • BR BioAdvisory Services
    • Technology
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
    • Digital Commerce
    • Fintech
    • Real Estate
    • Hospitality & Leisure
    • Distressed Real Estate
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Wireless Network Infrastructure
  • Insights
    • Client News
    • Firm News
    • Briefings
    • Events
  • Careers
    • Experienced Lawyers
    • U.S. Law Students
    • London Trainee Program
    • Business Professionals
    • Professional Development
  • Public Interest
    • Brown Rudnick Charitable Foundation
    • Pro Bono & Community Service
  • Inclusion
    • Inclusion
    • Women in Business Series

Search People

Search by last name

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

see all people

Asset 3
  • LinkedIn
  • X (formerly known as Twitter)
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap
  • LinkedIn
  • X (formerly known as Twitter)
  • Instagram
  • YouTube

© 2024 Brown Rudnick LLP. Attorney advertising.

All Rights Reserved.

All Posts Subscribe
print-logo
12/20/2023 3:33:30 PM | 2 minute read

UK Supreme Court: AI Cannot Be an Inventor

1
2
30

Get in touch

Avatar
David Knight
Partner

Get in touch

Avatar
David Knight
Partner
Robot and human hands pointing to each other, the idea of creating futuristic AI, intelligent systems to work instead of humans and do what humans can't. Creating innovative technology of the future.
1
2
30

Although not entirely unexpected, the Dec. 20 decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on the so-called Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) patent applications is truly significant in the field of artificial intelligence and whether AI-generated inventions can be patented in the U.K. It is important to note that the judgment does not address the question of whether AI-generated inventions meet the requirements for patentability, but considers instead questions around inventorship and ownership. 

Instead, Dr. Stephen Thaler, president and CEO of Imagination Engines, the patent applicant has contended throughout that the DABUS AI system (which he had created) conceived the inventions and that he was entitled to own the inventions because he owned DABUS. As the Judgment records:

“[I]n this jurisdiction, it is not and has never been Dr. Thaler’s case that he was the inventor and used DABUS as a highly sophisticated tool. Had he done so, the outcome of these proceedings might well have been different.”

The United Kingdom Patents Act 1977 sets out who has the right to apply for and obtain a patent. The starting or default position (section 7(2)(a)) is that a patent may be granted to the inventor, but this default position can be change (section 7(2)(b)) where the inventor has contracted with some (typically an employer), or successors (section 7(2)(c)). The section finishes with the words “and to no other person.” One needs therefore to consider who is the inventor (i.e. the devisor of the invention) and everything then flows from that.

After considering the references in Patents Act to “persons” and “inventor” the Court concluded that there is:

“[O]nly one interpretation: an inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person, and DABUS is not a person at all, let alone a natural person: it is a machine and on the factual assumption underpinning these proceedings, created or generated the technical advances disclosed in the applications on its own.”

As there is no “inventor” it necessarily follows that there was no person to whom a patent could be granted.

The Supreme Court also held that even if that hurdle had been overcome, merely being the owner of DABUS is not sufficient to transfer ownership of the rights in the invention Thaler.   

Accordingly, his patent applications failed as Thaler had failed to name the inventor and because he had failed to explain how he had the right to file the patent applications.

The case always has been seen as a test case taking on the sections in the U.K. patent legislation around inventorship. The judgment does not address the question about what would have happened had Thaler kept quiet about the involvement of the DABUS AI system in making the inventions, and had just filed patent applications naming himself as inventor. 

The U.K. Patent Office very unlikely would have looked behind such statements and would have allowed the patent applications to proceed. Had they subsequently been granted it then would have been up to third parties to challenge those patents on the basis of lack of human inventor. In the years to come we may well see such a case. 

It is now, however, settled law in the U.K. that an AI system cannot be an inventor – at all times it is necessary for the named inventor to be a natural person.

Sign up to receive our latest BRiefings delivered directly to your inbox. Subscribe

Tags

ai, uk patent office, uk supreme court, dabus, uk patents act, intellectual property, patents, technology

Get in touch

Avatar
David Knight
Partner

Get in touch

Avatar
David Knight
Partner
Walters v. OpenAI: A Game-Changing Verdict Reshaping AI, Defamation and Tech's Future
5/27/2025 9:16:20 PM

Walters v. OpenAI: A Game-Changing Verdict Reshaping AI, Defamation and Tech's Future

By Erick Robinson
In a decision that could reshape the legal and technological landscape, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, issued a ruling...
5
5
10

Latest Insights

In the Financial Times, Partner Matthew Sharp discusses UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) compliance
5/30/2025 8:28:25 AM

In the Financial Times, Partner Matthew Sharp discusses UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) compliance

By Matthew Sharp
German Court Allows Meta to Use Public Data for AI Training: Implications for Europe’s AI Landscape
5/27/2025 3:16:48 PM

German Court Allows Meta to Use Public Data for AI Training: Implications for Europe’s AI Landscape

By Erick Robinson
4
4
NY Court of Appeals Applies Internal-Affairs Doctrine to Standing in Derivative Actions on Behalf of Foreign Corporations
5/21/2025 8:19:59 PM

NY Court of Appeals Applies Internal-Affairs Doctrine to Standing in Derivative Actions on Behalf of Foreign Corporations

By Jonathan Richman
1
26
27