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 2025

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

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

Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Gift this article