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

Introduction

In a significant development at the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law, the Indian Patent Office refused a patent application naming an AI system “DABUS” as the inventor. The decision reflects India’s current legal position that only natural persons can qualify as inventors under the Patents Act, 1970.

The order also addresses broader concerns surrounding AI-generated inventions, proof of entitlement, and the evolving scope of patent law in the age of autonomous technologies.

Background of the Application

The patent application, filed by Stephen L. Thaler, related to a food container featuring a fractal wall structure designed to enable multiple containers to interlock through complementary pits and bulges.

What made the application unique was that the inventor identified in the application was not a human being, but an artificial intelligence system named DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). According to the applicant, DABUS independently generated the invention without human intervention and therefore ought to be recognised as the “true and first inventor.”

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 who are legally recognised persons capable of holding rights, assigning rights, executing declarations, and being represented in law.

Since DABUS is an artificial intelligence system and not a legal person, it could not satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under Sections 6, 7, and 10 of the Patents Act. Specifically, the Office noted that an AI system:

• Cannot execute an assignment
• Cannot sign declarations of inventorship
• Does not possess legal personality necessary to own or transfer rights

Accordingly, the Controller concluded that an artificial intelligence system cannot qualify as a “true and first inventor” under Indian patent law.

Reliance on International Jurisprudence

While rejecting the application, the Indian Patent Office referred to several international decisions concerning DABUS applications. The following jurisdictions had similarly declined to recognise AI systems as inventors under their respective patent frameworks:

• United Kingdom
• United States
• European Patent Office
• Australia
• Germany
• Japan

Particular reliance was placed on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Thaler v Comptroller of Patents (2023), wherein it was held that only a natural person can qualify as an inventor because patent statutes are structured around concepts of legal ownership, assignment, and entitlement, all of which presuppose human inventorship.

Applicant’s Submissions on AI-Generated Inventions

The applicant argued that refusing patent protection to AI-generated inventions could result in genuine inventions falling outside the protection of the patent system merely because they were autonomously generated by machines.

The applicant also relied upon Parliamentary Committee Report No. 161, which recommended reconsideration of Indian intellectual property laws to accommodate AI-generated innovations and suggested the possibility of creating a separate framework for AI-related inventions.

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

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 merely represented an obvious modification of existing container technologies already disclosed in prior art documents relating to interlocking structures, grooves, projections, and engagement mechanisms.

The Office observed that merely characterising the wall geometry as “fractal” was insufficient to establish inventiveness in the absence of:

• Comparative technical data
• Demonstrated technical advancement
• Any unexpected technical effect over existing technologies

Consequently, the claimed invention was considered to be a predictable variation of known container engagement structures.

Final Decision

The Patent Office ultimately refused the patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. It held that DABUS, being an artificial intelligence system, cannot legally be recognised as an inventor under the existing statutory framework.

Additionally, the claimed invention was found to lack inventive step and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for patentability under Indian law.

Conclusion

The DABUS decision represents a major 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 intrinsically linked to legal personality, accountability, and ownership.

At the same time, the decision highlights the growing tension between traditional patent frameworks and rapidly advancing AI technologies capable of autonomously generating inventions. As artificial intelligence continues to reshape innovation globally, the question of whether intellectual property laws should evolve to recognise machine-generated inventions is likely to become increasingly significant in India and across other jurisdictions.