UK Supreme Court rules an AI system cannot be named as a patent inventor
See how this story connectsIn Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49, five justices held unanimously that an inventor under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person, so Stephen Thaler’s AI system DABUS could not be one. Thaler’s ownership of DABUS did not entitle him to the patents, and his two applications were treated as withdrawn. The court said it was not deciding whether inventions made autonomously by AI should be patentable.
Why it matters
Applicants seeking UK patents for AI-generated inventions must name a human inventor, and any change for machine-made inventions is left to Parliament.
- When
- 20 Dec 2023
- ID
WTA-N-2023-0172- Where
- United Kingdom
- Who
- UK Supreme Court, UK Intellectual Property Office; Stephen Thaler
- Topics
- Copyright, Courts and liability
Summary by wheresthe.ai, from UK Supreme Court. Checked against the source on 9 Oct 2026.
Source copy: download the page as saved on 18 Oct 2026 (PDF). Document the source offers: document 1 (PDF). Also held by the Internet Archive.
Cite this story
WTA-N-2023-0172: “UK Supreme Court rules an AI system cannot be named as a patent inventor.” wheresthe.ai, 20 Dec 2023. https://wheresthe.ai/d/gb-supreme-court-thaler-dabus-2023-12/ (source: UK Supreme Court (National Archives case law)).
Spotted an error? Email [email protected].