What does the High Court decision in Thaler & DABUS mean for AI inventions?

The High Court has given its latest ruling in the Thaler & Dabus case concerning whether an AI-generated invention can be patented, and who can obtain a patent.

Here are some rapid reaction take aways –

The original case concerned the application by Dr. Thaler for a patent where he said an AI called DABUS was the inventor.  That case made it to the Supreme Court.

At first instance, Mr. Justice Smith recorded the application by Dr. Thaler:

“A machine called “DABUS” conceived of the present invention

The invention disclosed and claimed in this British patent application was generated by a specific machine called “DABUS” …

In the case of the present invention, the machine only received training in general knowledge in the field and proceeded to independently conceive of the invention and to identify it as novel and salient. If the teaching had been given to a person, that person would meet inventorship criteria as inventor.

In some cases of machine invention, a natural person might qualify as inventor by virtue of having exhibited inventive skill in developing a program to solve a particular problem, or by skilfully selecting data to provide to a machine, or by identifying the output of a machine as inventive. However, in the present case, DABUS was not created to solve any particular problem, was not trained on any special data relevant to the present invention, and the machine rather than a person identified the novelty and salience of the present invention.”

In the Supreme Court, Lord Kitchin’s judgment told us:

“51. Here Dr Thaler has made it clear that he does not claim to be and indeed is not the inventor of any inventions described or disclosed in the applications; that it was and remains his belief and case that the inventions were made by DABUS, a machine powered by AI; and that DABUS ought therefore to be named and recognised as inventor. I would also emphasise, as has the Comptroller, that the UKIPO did not and could not go behind those assertions, so far as they constituted assertions of fact, in dealing with these applications. The question whether DABUS in fact created and generated the inventions described in the applications has therefore never been investigated. The applications have been considered and assessed (and the appeals have been decided) on the basis that the factual assertions made by Dr Thaler are correct.

52. It follows but is important to reiterate nonetheless that, in this jurisdiction, it is not and has never been Dr Thaler’s case that he was the inventor and used DABUS as a highly sophisticated tool. Had he done so, the outcome of these proceedings might well have been different.

…

55. …Dr Thaler has argued throughout that the technical advances and the new products described and disclosed in the applications were devised by DABUS, and that DABUS was their inventor. As I have indicated, the Comptroller accepts for the purpose of these proceedings the substance of the factual case advanced by Dr Thaler, namely that DABUS created or generated the technical advances described and disclosed in the applications and did so autonomously using AI…”

Therefore, if DABUS alone was the inventor, it could not apply for a patent. However, in the course of oral argument before the Supreme Court, in reply to Lord Kitchin, there was a suggestion that had Dr. Thaler listed himself as the inventor using DABUS, the application might have been successful. This case was therefore about whether Dr. Thaler could now say he was the inventor and obtain a patent – and more broadly what a person has to do to qualify as the actual devisor of an invention made by an AI system.

Despite the Supreme Court exchange, the UK Comptroller of Patents refused to accept the addition of Dr. Thaler as inventor. Its position was that Dr. Thaler could originally have taken that position and the Comptroller would not have looked behind it, but as it had clear evidence on file that Dr. Thaler has never believed he is the inventor of this application, it could reject him as inventor.

What is happening in other jurisdictions?

In the course of argument, what is happening in other jurisdictions was also referenced, giving an understanding of how AI inventorship is developing globally. In the USA, the USPTO has issued guidance stating that the use of an AI system by a natural person does not preclude them from qualifying as an inventor if they ‘significantly contributed to the claimed invention.’ If they did not, then they cannot qualify as an inventor. The German Federal Supreme Court concluded that identification of Dr Thaler as inventor, together with a statement that he had ‘prompted [or caused] the artificial intelligence DABUS to generate the invention’, was acceptable. The Swiss Federal Administrative Court, in its judgment in June 2025 held that a natural person qualified as a co-inventor if they influenced an AI system by contributing to the data processing that leads to an AI-generated invention.

Clearly, the use of AI to invent needs to be dealt with by legislators because there are significant advancements being made using AI. Without careful thought, the patent system will no longer function as intended. Turning back to the latest High Court decision: The past statements of Dr Thaler proved fatal as the judge found the Comptroller (UKIPO) was entitled to conclude that Thaler’s statement of belief that he is the inventor of the inventions was defective.

Yet this may not be the end, there is the prospect of appeal. Such an appeal may well pick up on this statement from the judge:

“I prefer to leave open the question of whether it is proper to have regard to statements made by Dr. Thaler on other applications, even though they are from the same family, or whether that might be regarded as straying into an investigation.”

This could mean the Court of Appeal are asked to look at the issues, and if so we will return with more updates.

If you have questions or concerns about the issues raised in this case, please contact James Tumbridge.