UK Supreme Court set for DABUS appeal

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

UK Supreme Court set for DABUS appeal

AI and human.jpeg

The UK’s top court will rule on whether the country’s patent law requires an inventor to be a human after an influential judge gave the DABUS team hope last year

The UK Supreme Court will hear a keenly awaited appeal over whether an artificial intelligence tool can be named as the inventor on a patent application tomorrow, March 2.

The hearing, which Managing IP will report live from, is the culmination of a legal campaign led by computer scientist Stephen Thaler and lawyer and academic Ryan Abbott.

Thaler and Abbott, who are part of an organisation called the Artificial Inventor Project, want the court to recognise the AI tool DABUS as the inventor of a patent covering a food storage system.

The project has filed patent applications in major jurisdictions naming DABUS, which was developed by Thaler, as the inventor.

Both the England and Wales High Court and Court of Appeal, as well as the UKIPO, said that UK patent law requires a natural person to be named as the inventor.

In its September 2021 judgment, the Court of Appeal voted 2-1 to reject the DABUS case.

But a dissenting opinion from the influential intellectual property judge Lord Justice Colin Birss gave a glimmer of hope to the DABUS case.

Birss said Thaler had met the requirements set out in the UK Patents Act 1977 by identifying whom he believed to be the inventor.

However, Birss did not comment more generally on whether the law should recognise machines as inventors.

An Australian judge did give a more explicit endorsement of the DABUS team’s position in a landmark Federal Court judgment issued in July 2021 but that finding was overturned last November.

Managing IP will attend the Supreme Court and report on the proceedings tomorrow.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Recent lateral moves raise a bigger question for full-service firms – can patent litigation remain a strategic priority when competing practices generate larger profits?
As counterfeiters grow increasingly sophisticated, Gibson Dunn is differentiating its trademark practice through a focus on payment tracing, judgment enforcement and asset recovery
Anita Polott, who is celebrating three decades at Morgan Lewis this year, reflects on career progression, stepping into unfamiliar territory, and leadership frameworks
Technical excellence remains essential, but many firms are discovering that packaging IP with complementary practice areas can unlock new clients and a stronger competitive position
As international interest in Southeast Asia grows, Sheng Rong Tng discusses how changing client demands and the firm’s multidisciplinary model are helping it compete for complex regional mandates
Todd Hopfinger, director in Sterne Kessler’s electronics practice group, says IP owners are contemplating how patent rights will be enforced as commercial activity expands beyond Earth
Christopher Stothers' arrival strengthens the firm's life sciences, technology and UPC offering as competition for top European litigators intensifies
Armstrong Teasdale’s Jim Heinen Jr discusses the challenge of balancing billables, business development and family life and explains why not all patent lawyers are science nerds
From cross-border jurisdiction to the end of the transitional period, Powell Gilbert’s Ioana Sabau and Bryce Matthewson predict the biggest talking points ahead
A wave of office launches and lateral hires reflects the draw of patent disputes, but booming AI, semiconductor and data centre markets are offering an even bigger IP opportunity
Gift this article