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

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
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
Gift this article