Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

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

Breaking: AI can’t invent, UK Supreme Court rules

SupremeCourt.jpg

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that only people can be named as inventors on patent applications in a defeat for the legal team behind the DABUS case

The UK Supreme Court has today ruled unanimously that only people, and not artificial intelligence tools, can be inventors under UK patent law.

The keenly awaited decision is a final defeat for the legal team behind the so-called DABUS case that sought to establish an AI tool as the inventor of a food storage system.

Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who developed the DABUS system, applied for two patents for food storage systems that he said were autonomously created by the AI tool.

The UKIPO rejected the applications on the basis that UK law requires a natural person to be named as an inventor.

Thaler and his legal team, led by Ryan Abbott, appealed the decision through the courts, culminating in today’s ruling.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld earlier decisions by the UKIPO and England and Wales High Court in September 2021.

A dissenting opinion from influential IP judge Lord Justice Colin Birss at the Court of Appeal gave hope to supporters of AI inventorship.

Birss said Thaler had fulfilled his obligations under the Patent Act by identifying who he believed to be the inventor and that the patents should be allowed.

But the Supreme Court was unequivocal.

“We conclude an inventor must be a natural person,” said Lord Justice David Kitchin, reading the judgment on behalf of the court.

“Only a person can devise an invention … parliament did not contemplate the possibility that a machine, acting on its own and powered by AI, can be an inventor.”

This was Kitchin’s final judgment for the Supreme Court after he formally retired in September.

A full analysis of the decision will follow on Managing IP later this week.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Gift this article