India’s Patent Office has refused the DABUS application because an AI system cannot be an inventor under the Patents Act, 1970, as the European Commission’s IP Helpdesk reported on 27 July 2026. On AI inventorship, patent law now gives the same answer in India, Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States and Brazil: only a natural person can be named. The practical issue for companies using AI in research is no longer whether the machine can be an inventor, but which humans can, and how to prove it.
Update (October 2026): Dr Stephen Thaler has appealed the Indian refusal to the Delhi High Court (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 36/2026); notice was issued on 30 July 2026 and the case was listed for 18 September 2026. Until the court rules, the Patent Office’s position is the one applied in India. Intepat, 10 August 2026.
Key takeaways
- The Indian Controller refused application 202017019068 on 15 April 2026 on two grounds: AI cannot be an inventor, and the claimed food container lacked inventive step.
- Owning the AI system, its code or its hardware does not make the owner an inventor.
- The EPO (2021), the UK Supreme Court (2023), Brazil’s INPI (2022) and the USPTO’s guidance (2025) all require a natural person.
- AI-assisted inventions remain patentable if a human made the inventive contribution and is named.
What did India’s Patent Office decide on DABUS?
DABUS is an AI system developed by Dr Stephen Thaler, who has filed applications naming it as inventor in many countries. The Indian application covered a food container with a fractal wall that lets containers interlock. According to the EC IP Helpdesk, the Controller held that Indian law requires an inventor to be a natural or legally recognised person able to hold and transfer rights, and that recognising AI as an inventor would need legislative change.
Indian commentators give more detail. Intepat identifies the order as dated 15 April 2026, and K&S Partners notes that the Controller read Sections 6 and 7 of the Patents Act as built on a human inventor who can assign rights and sign declarations of inventorship. The application also failed on the merits: the container was found obvious over the prior art.
How does AI inventorship compare in Europe, the UK and Latin America?
| Jurisdiction | Decision or rule | Position |
|---|---|---|
| India | Patent Office refusal, 15 April 2026 | Inventor must be a natural or legally recognised person; owning the AI is not enough |
| European Patent Office | J 8/20, Legal Board of Appeal, 21 December 2021 | A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the European Patent Convention |
| United Kingdom | Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49, 20 December 2023 | Inventor must be a natural person; the applications were treated as withdrawn |
| United States | USPTO revised inventorship guidance, 26 November 2025 | Only natural persons; AI is a tool, and the ordinary conception test applies |
| Brazil | INPI, application BR 11 2021 008931-4, September 2022 | Only natural persons can be credited as inventors under the Industrial Property Law |
The Brazilian refusal rested on an opinion of INPI’s legal office applying Article 6 of Law 9,279/1996, as Mayer Brown summarised in April 2023. The same summary notes that South Africa’s office accepted the DABUS application. For the rest of Latin America, the practical rule is the same: name the human inventors.
Is an AI-assisted invention still patentable?
Yes, if a person made the inventive contribution. The USPTO’s November 2025 guidance says the same conception standard applies whether or not AI was used and treats AI systems as tools, like laboratory equipment or software. The EPO and the UK courts did not rule out protection for inventions developed with AI; they ruled out naming the machine. The risk is evidential: if nobody can show what a human contributed, the application can fail on inventorship or entitlement, or be challenged later.
What this means for your business
- Identify the human contribution at the invention disclosure stage: who framed the problem, chose the training data or model, selected and verified the output, and adapted it into the claimed solution.
- Keep dated records of prompts, model versions, experiments and human decisions.
- Make sure employees, contractors and university partners have assigned their rights before filing.
- Use the same inventors across the PCT application and every national phase, including India, Europe and Latin America.
If you are protecting AI-assisted developments in several countries, our patent filing team for Europe, Latin America and Africa can align inventor designations and assignments across the family, and our AI and digital assets team can review how the tools are used.
Where companies get AI inventorship wrong
- Naming the AI, or nobody. Every office reviewed here requires a human inventor.
- Naming the person who owns or runs the tool by default, without checking who actually contributed.
- Keeping no records. Inventorship disputes are decided on evidence, often years later.
- Missing assignments from freelancers or partners who contributed to the inventive step.
These issues are cheaper to fix before filing than in an opposition or a licensing negotiation.
Frequently asked questions
Can an AI system be named as inventor on a patent?
No, in the offices reviewed here. India’s Patent Office, the EPO, the UK Supreme Court, Brazil’s INPI and the USPTO all require the inventor to be a natural person. The Indian refusal of April 2026 sets out that office’s position under the Patents Act, 1970.
Can I patent an invention developed with AI tools?
Yes, if one or more people made the inventive contribution and are named as inventors. The AI is treated as a tool. What matters is documenting the human contribution, such as how the problem was framed and how the output was selected, tested and adapted into the claimed invention.
Who should be listed as inventor when AI was used?
The people who contributed to the conception of the claimed invention under each country’s ordinary rules, not simply the owner of the AI system or the person who ran it. The assessment should be made claim by claim and kept consistent across the PCT application and all national phases.
Can IP Global Guard review inventorship for an AI-assisted invention?
Yes. We review the invention disclosure and records with your team, align inventor designations and assignments, and prepare and coordinate the PCT and national filings, working through qualified local correspondents in Latin America, Africa and other countries such as India, from a single point of contact.
How IP Global Guard can help protect AI-assisted inventions
The DABUS cases settle who cannot be an inventor; they leave each company to prove who can. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, coordinates patent filings across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa, with one strategy and one billing relationship. Within the same group, META Channel also advises on the EU AI Act.
Tell us what your AI-assisted invention does, who worked on it and where you want protection. We will review the inventorship and assignment chain and plan the filings. Contact our patent team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the situation on its publication date.
Sources
- European Commission IP Helpdesk, India’s Patent Office rejects AI inventor in DABUS decision (27 July 2026)
- Intepat, DABUS refused in India (April 2026)
- K&S Partners, AI cannot be an inventor: Indian Patent Office rejects DABUS (19 May 2026)
- EPO Legal Board of Appeal, J 8/20 (21 December 2021)
- UK Supreme Court, Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49 (20 December 2023)
- USPTO, Revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions (26 November 2025)
- Mayer Brown, Brazil: artificial intelligence as inventor in a patent application (April 2023)
- Intepat, USPTO AI-assisted inventorship guidance vs India’s DABUS position (10 August 2026), update only
