AI Cannot Be an Inventor: Indian Patent Office Rejects the DABUS Patent Application

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the way innovation takes place across industries. From creating artwork and composing music to assisting in scientific discoveries and technological development, AI systems are increasingly capable of producing outputs that resemble human creativity and invention. This technological shift has raised an important legal question across the world: can an artificial intelligence system be recognised as an inventor under patent law?

The Indian Patent Office recently addressed this issue in the widely discussed DABUS patent application. In a significant decision, the Patent Office refused a patent application that named an AI system called “DABUS” as the inventor. The decision reinforces India’s present legal position that only natural persons can qualify as inventors under the Patents Act, 1970. At the same time, it highlights the growing tension between traditional intellectual property laws and rapidly advancing AI technologies.

Background of the DABUS Application

The patent application was filed by Stephen L. Thaler and related to a food container designed with a fractal wall structure that allowed multiple containers to interlock through complementary pits and bulges.

What made the application unique was that the inventor named in the application was not a human being, but an artificial intelligence system called DABUS, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. According to the applicant, the invention had been autonomously generated by DABUS without direct human contribution and therefore the AI system should be recognised as the “true and first inventor.”

This claim placed before the Indian Patent Office a question that several jurisdictions around the world have recently confronted: whether an AI system can legally hold the status of inventor under existing patent laws.

Objections Raised by the Patent Office

During examination, the Patent Office raised objections concerning both inventorship and patentability. The Controller observed that the Patents Act, 1970 contemplates inventors as legally recognised persons capable of:

• holding rights,
• assigning rights,
• executing declarations, and
• being represented in law.

The Patent Office noted that Sections 6 and 7 of the Patents Act are structured around the assumption that an inventor is a natural person. Since DABUS is an artificial intelligence system and not a legal person, it could not satisfy these statutory requirements.

The Controller further observed that an AI system cannot:

• execute an assignment,
• sign declarations of inventorship,
• own property, or
• independently transfer legal rights.

Accordingly, the Patent Office concluded that DABUS could not legally qualify as a “true and first inventor” under Indian patent law.

The applicant argued that denying patent protection to AI-generated inventions could leave genuine innovations outside the scope of the patent system merely because they were autonomously generated by machines. Reliance was also placed on Parliamentary Committee Report No. 161, which recommended reconsideration of intellectual property laws in light of AI-related innovations.

However, the Patent Office clarified that policy recommendations and technological developments cannot override the express provisions of the Patents Act unless legislative amendments are introduced by Parliament.

Reliance on International Decisions

While refusing the application, the Indian Patent Office referred to several international decisions concerning DABUS applications in jurisdictions such as United Kingdom, United States, European Patent Office, Australia, Germany, Japan.

Particular reliance was placed on Thaler vs. Comptroller of Patents, where the UK Supreme Court held that only a natural person can qualify as an inventor because patent laws are based on concepts of legal ownership, assignment, and entitlement, all of which presuppose human inventorship. The Indian Patent Office observed that similar reasoning applies under the Indian statutory framework as well.

Objection on Inventive Step

Apart from the inventorship issue, the Patent Office also rejected the application on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

The Controller held that the claimed food container represented only an obvious modification of existing technologies already disclosed in prior art documents relating to interlocking structures, grooves, projections, and engagement mechanisms.

Although the applicant emphasised the “fractal” wall geometry as the inventive feature, the Patent Office observed that merely describing a design as “fractal” was insufficient to establish inventiveness in the absence of:

• comparative technical data,
• demonstrated technical advancement, or
• any unexpected technical effect.

The invention was therefore considered to be a predictable variation of known container engagement structures and lacking inventive step.

Significance of the Decision

The DABUS decision represents an important development in the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and intellectual property law in India. The ruling reinforces that Indian patent law presently remains human-centric and that inventorship is closely linked to legal personality, ownership, and accountability.

At the same time, the decision reflects the growing challenges that AI-generated inventions pose to traditional patent frameworks. As artificial intelligence systems become increasingly capable of independently generating innovative solutions, questions relating to inventorship, ownership, and protection of AI-generated inventions are likely to become more significant in the future.

The decision also makes it clear that any recognition of AI-generated inventorship in India would require legislative reform rather than judicial or administrative interpretation.

Conclusion

The refusal of the DABUS patent application marks a significant moment in India’s developing AI and intellectual property jurisprudence. The Indian Patent Office firmly held that under the existing provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, only natural persons can qualify as inventors and that artificial intelligence systems lack the legal personality required for inventorship.

While the decision aligns India with the prevailing international approach, it also highlights the increasing tension between rapidly advancing AI technologies and traditional intellectual property laws. As AI continues to transform innovation globally, the debate surrounding the recognition and protection of AI-generated inventions is likely to play a crucial role in shaping the future of patent law in India and across other jurisdictions.

Co – Authors: Shambhavi Sharma & Divya Bhushan.