Thaler v. Vidal (DABUS)

Thaler v. Vidal — AI as Patent Inventor Denied (Fed. Cir., cert. denied)
Fed. Cir. · Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)

Status
In effect
Took effect
August 5, 2022
Applies to
Patent applicants before USPTO and U.S. federal courts

Stephen Thaler, inventor of the 'DABUS' AI system, sought to list DABUS as the inventor on two patent applications. The Federal Circuit ruled in August 2022 that under the Patent Act 'inventor' must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2023, settling U.S. law: AI systems cannot be inventors of record.

Who is protected: (Doctrinal — establishes that AI cannot be a patent inventor of record)

Legal detail

Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023). Held: 35 U.S.C. § 100(f) limits 'inventor' to a natural person; no statutory ambiguity permitting AI inventorship. USPTO issued February 2024 inventorship guidance applying this rule and requiring named human inventors with significant contributions.

Key facts

JurisdictionFed. Cir.
LevelFederal
StrengthStronger
CitationThaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)
TopicsAI disclosure and transparency · automated decision-making
Court recordThaler v. Vidal — CourtListener Fed. Cir. opinion

Related AI disclosure and transparency rules elsewhere

See something wrong or out of date? Submit a correction. Every entry must carry a verifiable source.