Mapping the global borderlines of AI-assisted inventions

In the modern technological landscape, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has breached its traditional boundary as a mere digital tool. Unlike older software that tends to follow fixed rules, AI can learn, adapt, and create new solutions on its own. It is changing everything - from how we write software to how we design physical products. AI has become a part of almost every new invention, optimised to manage, protect, and secure technology while driving an important role in management and modern enterprises' works.

In fact, the AI might no longer just be a part of an invention, but it is actively doing the inventing itself. A prime example of this shift is the internationally renowned DABUS case.

The core fact of the case is that Dr. Stephen Thaler listed his AI system, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science), as the inventor for the purpose of autonomously generating inventions without human intervention. DABUS prepared two distinct inventions:

• A revolutionary design for food storage and mechanisms intended to maximize visual engagement;

• A unique light flashing device for emergency care.

Despite being genuine inventions with established utility, these patent applications have faced a wall of rejections across various jurisdictions. As per the prevailing legal principles of global patent law, only humans i.e. natural persons can be considered as an inventor.

These rejections bring two curious questions to the absolute forefront of modern Intellectual Property (IP) filings and systems:

1. Who should own the AI-related invention?

2. Is it possible that an AI can be an inventor in a patent application?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that in the global patent ecosystem, the inventor - termed as a human - is the absolute center of the system. The human being is the sole entity entitled to be an inventor.. While this human-centric principle has long been universal, the rise of AI-assisted innovation forces us to ask: Can AI truly be an inventor?

Title 35 of US Patent Act of 1952 provides the explicit legal definitions for an "inventor" and "joint inventor." Section 100(f) states:

“The term 'inventor' means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.”

The law mandates that every application include details of the inventors who contributed in some significant manner to reach the invention.

This principle aligns with the long-standing judicial precedent settled on August 6, 1998, in Pannu v. Iolab Corp., which established the Pannu factors for determining joint inventorship. A joint inventor must:

1. Contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention;

2. Make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, measured against the dimension of the full invention; and

3. Do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.

Recently, US judicial authorities reaffirmed that the Patent Act limits the definition of an “inventor” exclusively to natural human beings. On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal upheld the findings of the USPTO and concluded:

“The sole issue on appeal is whether an AI software system can be an “inventor” under the Patent Act... here, there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings... The statute consistently refers to inventors and co-inventors as “individuals.” See § 115.”

While this ruling maintained that inventorship is a human-only domain, it explicitly noted that it did not address the patentability of inventions where humans are assisted by AI tools.

To bridge this gap, USPTO introduced the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions in 2024, which was subsequently replaced by revised guidelines in 2025.

• 2024 Framework: Suggested that AI-assisted outcomes were eligible for protection if at least one human made a substantial contribution, evaluated through traditional joint inventorship tests (like the Pannu factors).

• 2025 Revision: Treats AI similarly to standard laboratory tools or software. While creators may leverage AI in their workflows, eligibility still hinges on the traditional standard: a natural person must qualify as the inventor.

The European Patent Convention (EPC) similarly ties the concept of inventorship to legal personhood. Certain provisions use the term "person", which has been interpreted to mean that an inventor must be a person with legal capacity.

Key EPC Articles:

• Article 60 (Right to a European Patent): Dictates that the right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title.

• Article 81 (Designation of the Inventor): Requires that the European patent application designates the inventor.

In the European leg of the DABUS case, Dr. Thaler filed two patent applications in 2018 listing DABUS as the sole inventor, claiming he derived the right of invention as the owner of the AI. EPO rejected the applications by stating that an inventor must be a natural person.

Dr. Thaler preferred two appeals. On December 21, 2021, the Board of Appeal of EPO (in appeal no. J 0008/20) dismissed the appeal, observing:

“Under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor... In summary, the main request does not comply with the EPC, because a machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC.”

Parallel to these judicial developments, the European Parliament enacted the Artificial Intelligence Act on June 13, 2024, to lay down a uniform legal framework for the development, market placement, and use of AI systems. This Act aims to ensure that emerging technologies do not undermine privacy, equality, and democratic processes, keeping societal well-being at its center while propelling global competitiveness, innovation, and sustainable growth. 

The statutory framework in India mirrors this global insistence on human inventorship. Section 2(y) of Patents Act, 1970 states that the "true and first inventor" does not include the first importer of an invention into India or a person to whom an invention is first communicated from outside the country.

In 2020, Dr. Thaler filed national phase applications in India for the DABUS-generated food container and light-flashing devices. The Indian Patent Office (IPO) also rejected the applications, ruling that only natural persons can be recognised as inventors.

The legal consensus across the United States, Europe, and India currently remains uniform: an inventor must be a natural human being. While AI tools like DABUS are technically capable of generating innovations, they lack the legal personhood and right-holding capacity mandated worldwide by patent laws to be classified as an inventor.

As a response to this technological revolution, jurisdictions are rapidly updating their regulatory frameworks. These legal updates demonstrate a clear global policy shift: rather than granting inventorship rights to machines, modern intellectual property regimes are concentrating on providing patent rights to the human beings who leverage AI in their creative workflows and innovation processes.

About the authors: Archana Singh is a Partner, Karmanya Singh Sareen is the Managing Partner, and Maitreyi Joshi is an Associate at Singh & Singh.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.