Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

SupremeCourt.jpg

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that only people can be named as inventors on patent applications in a defeat for the legal team behind the DABUS case

The UK Supreme Court has today ruled unanimously that only people, and not artificial intelligence tools, can be inventors under UK patent law.

The keenly awaited decision is a final defeat for the legal team behind the so-called DABUS case that sought to establish an AI tool as the inventor of a food storage system.

Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who developed the DABUS system, applied for two patents for food storage systems that he said were autonomously created by the AI tool.

The UKIPO rejected the applications on the basis that UK law requires a natural person to be named as an inventor.

Thaler and his legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, appealed the decision through the courts, culminating in today’s ruling.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld earlier decisions by the UKIPO and England and Wales High Court in September 2021.

A dissenting opinion from influential IP judge Lord Justice Colin Birss at the Court of Appeal gave hope to supporters of AI inventorship.

Birss said Thaler had fulfilled his obligations under the Patent Act by identifying who he believed to be the inventor and that the patents should be allowed.

But the Supreme Court was unequivocal.

“We conclude an inventor must be a natural person,” said Lord Justice David Kitchin, reading the judgment on behalf of the court.

“Only a person can devise an invention … parliament did not contemplate the possibility that a machine, acting on its own and powered by AI, can be an inventor.”

This was Kitchin’s final judgment for the Supreme Court after he formally retired in September.

A full analysis of the decision will follow on Managing IP later this week.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Gift this article