SCOTUS rejects plea to review DABUS decision

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

SCOTUS rejects plea to review DABUS decision

ai robot thinking

The US Supreme Court will not hear a case that determines whether AI can be listed as an inventor on a patent application

The US Supreme Court declined to hear a petition for a writ of certiorari over whether artificial intelligence can be listed as an inventor on Monday, April 24.

Stephen Thaler filed the petition last month after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected his attempt to list an AI tool called DABUS as the inventor on a patent application.

The Federal Circuit’s decision, handed down in August last year, upheld both a summary judgment from the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the USPTO’s initial rejection of the application.

Though Thaler was unsuccessful, The Chicago Patent Attorneys, Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic, and a group of four professors filed amicus briefs in his favour.

The USPTO declined to respond to the petition unless asked by SCOTUS.

Thaler has sought to get DABUS named as an inventor around the world. Last month, the UK Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case, heard oral arguments in the dispute.

Each of the intellectual property offices where DABUS applications have been filed has rejected them except for South Africa’s, which does not conduct substantive pre-grant examination.

The campaign enjoyed little success in the courts until the Federal Court of Australia found in 2021 that Australia’s Patents Act did not explicitly require an inventor to be a natural person.

However, that finding was overturned in November last year.


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
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
Gift this article