UK Supreme Court wrestles with inventorship at DABUS showdown

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK Supreme Court wrestles with inventorship at DABUS showdown

London- The Supreme Court on Parliament Square, Westminster. The

Oral arguments in the DABUS appeal centred on whether the wording of UK patent law has room for an AI inventor, as Managing IP reports live from court

UK patent law already allows for artificial intelligence tools to be named as inventors, counsel for computer scientist Stephen Thaler told the Supreme Court today, March 2.

A panel of five judges heard arguments in the final stage of a legal battle over whether two patent filings naming the AI tool DABUS as the inventor should be granted.

The appeal was brought by Thaler, the creator of DABUS, an AI system that he claims autonomously invented a food storage system.

The UKIPO rejected the patent filings on the grounds that UK patent law requires a human, or “natural person”, to be named as the inventor.

But counsel for Thaler told the Supreme Court that the law simply required the applicant to identify whom they believed the real inventor to be.

Ryan Abbott, a professor at the University of Surrey who has been representing Thaler throughout the case, and Robert Jehan, partner at Williams Powell, acted as counsel for Thaler.

In this case, the counsel said, Thaler’s statement that there was no human inventor met the UK Patents Act’s requirements.

Lord Justice David Kitchin, a former IP barrister, repeatedly quizzed the pair over why Thaler didn’t name himself as the inventor when this would probably have meant the patent could have been granted.

“You have taken what could be seen as a rather intransigent position in how you’ve framed your application and run into a brick wall,” the judge suggested.

But it would be dishonest for Thaler to name himself as the inventor when he was not the actual deviser of the technology, as required by UK law, Abbott replied.

“What might be intransigent to some might, to others, simply be Thaler stating his scientific belief [that there is no inventor],” he said.

Stuart Baran, barrister at Three New Square and standing counsel for the UKIPO, said too many of Thaler’s arguments dealt with what he thought the law should be rather than what the statute required.

“Parliament centred its provisions on [natural] persons with consideration and care,” he said.

Toby Bond, partner at Bird & Bird in London, was one of several lawyers who attended as observers.

Speaking to Managing IP outside court, he said the arguments touched on fundamental points about the purpose of the patents system.

“From their questions, the justices clearly understand the significance of the decision they have to take,” he said.

The trial concluded today and a decision is now pending.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Andrea Stone explains how her in-house experience gives her a unique perspective, and why Ballard Spahr’s combination with Lane Powell made it an ideal time to join
The pair had been fighting in multiple jurisdictions but have agreed to settle all litigation
Law firms may try to relate PTAB briefs to broader economic concerns in response to the USPTO’s latest guidance
IP Inclusive’s 10-year celebration provides reasons to be positive in the face of troubling attacks against DEI initiatives
Microsoft allegedly uses the HEVC technology in a range of products and offers an extension as an add-on
A group of five lawyers who joined Cleary Gottlieb say they want to help expand the firm’s IP litigation practice
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and our Managing IP Awards, we assess some of the major IP firms and trends in Germany
Florina Firaru discusses making new connections, the art of flower arranging, and the biggest misconception about IP
The firm, which appointed three IP partners from A&O Shearman, wants to develop a tier one practice in Europe
The England and Wales appeals court handed down its judgment just seven working days after hearing the trademark dispute involving pharma company Merck
Gift this article