Regarding the situation in the United States, it can be added that about a month ago, the US Patent Office (USPTO) published an updated policy document regarding inventions that use artificial intelligence as part of the invention procedure (Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions).[10] According to this document, which also refers to Dr. Thaler's proceedings in the DABUS case, only a "natural person" can be an inventor. Artificial intelligence, no matter how sophisticated, is not considered an inventor. It is treated, like a computer model, software, etc., as a tool that can assist the inventor in the invention process.
- England - Intellectual Property Authority (UKIPO) held that a machine could not be an inventor under the law and could not transfer rights and that Dr. Thaler could not be entitled to rights by virtue of his ownership of the machine. An appeal to the court was rejected, as was an appeal to the Court of Appeals (majority opinion). The main points of the decision of the Court of Appeals were presented in the Registrar's decision.
On December 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld the previous court rulings[11]. It was held that an inventor under the Patent Law must be a "natural person", DABUS does not meet this condition and is not an inventor. Dr. Thaler cannot be considered a rights holder solely by virtue of his ownership of the machine and the Doctrine of Access does not apply in the circumstances. The starting point of the law is an invention whose inventor is a human being.
To complete the picture, it should be noted that a patent application was later rejected in England in which Dr. Thaler listed himself as an inventor, in light of his other statements that the invention was carried out autonomously by DABUS and that he did not have a contribution that could define him as an inventor according to traditional criteria. An appeal against the UKIPO decision was dismissed on September 1, 2025[12].
- European Patent Office - The־Board of Appeal rejected Dr. Thaler's appeal against the refusal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to receive patent applications in which DABUS as an inventor and determined that the term invents according to the European Patent Convention(EPC) refers to a human being with legal competence[13].
On November 25, 2024, the EPO's Legal Board of Appeal rejected an appeal against the rejection of an amended registration application filed by Dr. Thaler in which he identified himself as an "inventor" by virtue of his ownership of the DABUS machine that created the invention "autonomously." The decision stipulated that any patent application must explicitly state the identity of the inventor, who must be a "natural person".[14]