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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article