Thaler v Vidal
Thaler v. Vidal (Case No. 21-2347, Federal Circuit; 43 F.4th 1207) is a landmark patent case establishing that only natural persons can be named as inventors under the U.S. Patent Act, rejecting the argument that an AI system can qualify as an inventor.[1]
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Thaler v. Vidal |
| Court (District) | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia |
| Court (Appeal) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Case Number | 21-2347 (Fed. Cir.); 1:20-cv-09090-LPS (E.D. Va.) |
| Judge (District) | Hon. Leonard P. Stark |
| Decided (Federal Circuit) | August 5, 2022 |
| Plaintiff/Appellant | Stephen L. Thaler |
| Defendant/Appellee | Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO |
| Claims | Whether an AI system (DABUS) can be listed as an inventor under the Patent Act |
| Holding | Inventors must be natural persons; AI cannot be an inventor under 35 U.S.C. |
| Status | Final — Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 24, 2023 |
Background
Dr. Stephen Thaler is the creator of DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), an AI system he calls a "Creativity Machine" that purportedly generates inventions autonomously without human creative input.[2]
In 2019, Thaler filed two U.S. patent applications naming DABUS as the sole inventor: one for a fractal beverage container and another for a neural flame device designed for search-and-rescue. The USPTO rejected both applications as incomplete, stating that "a machine does not qualify as an inventor" under the Patent Act.[1][3]
Thaler petitioned the USPTO Director to review the rejections, but the petitions were denied on April 22, 2020. Thaler then sued the USPTO under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[4]
District Court Ruling
The district court granted summary judgment for the USPTO, holding that inventors must be human under the Patent Act and adjudicating based on the PTO administrative record. The court found that the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, 101, 115, and 281 all presuppose that inventors are natural persons capable of taking oaths, making statements, and holding property rights.[1]
Federal Circuit Ruling
On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court in an opinion by Judge Stacy G. Beck (concurring: Judges Moore and Stark). The court held that the Patent Act requires inventors to be "natural persons" or "individuals," and that DABUS, as AI software, cannot be listed as an inventor.[1]
Key holdings:
- The term "inventor" as used in the Patent Act refers to an "individual" — which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean a natural person[1]
- The Act's requirements for inventors to execute oaths, sign declarations, and make factual statements presuppose human capacity[2]
- Thaler's policy arguments — that allowing AI inventorship would promote innovation — lacked basis in the Act's text[1]
- The court rejected arguments based on constitutional patent purposes, noting these do not override statutory text[1]
Supreme Court Denial
Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in March 2023. The Court denied certiorari on April 24, 2023, without comment, leaving the Federal Circuit's human-inventor requirement as binding U.S. law.[3][5]
International Parallel Litigation
Thaler filed identical DABUS patent applications in multiple jurisdictions with uniformly unsuccessful results:
- European Patent Office: Rejected; Technical Board of Appeal affirmed
- United Kingdom: UK Supreme Court unanimously rejected AI inventorship (December 2023)[6]
- Australia: Federal Court initially allowed AI inventorship, but Full Court reversed on appeal
- Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany: All rejected AI inventorship
Significance
Thaler v. Vidal establishes that under current U.S. patent law, only humans can be inventors. However, the case leaves unresolved the harder question of how much human involvement is sufficient for AI-assisted inventions to qualify for patent protection. The USPTO subsequently issued guidance on AI-assisted inventorship, clarifying that a natural person who significantly contributes to the conception of an invention — even when using AI tools — may be named as an inventor.[7][8]
See Also
- Thaler v. Perlmutter — Supreme Court Denies Review on AI Authorship — Parallel copyright case by same plaintiff
- Cases — Active AI litigation tracker
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Federal Circuit Opinion, Thaler v. Vidal, No. 21-2347, August 5, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Holland & Knight, "Revisiting AI Inventorship in Thaler v. Vidal," October 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Akin Gump, "Supreme Court Will Not Review Federal Circuit's Decision in Thaler v. Vidal"
- ↑ DePaul University, "AI Inventorship: Thaler v. Vidal and the Future of Patent Law"
- ↑ Jones Day, "Generative AI-Assisted Patent Inventorship: Questions Remain," June 2023
- ↑ Wolters Kluwer, "The End of the Road for DABUS and Dr. Thaler at the UK Supreme Court"
- ↑ PatentlyO, "USPTO's Fiction on Inventorship," November 2025
- ↑ USPTO, "Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions"