The Indian Patent Office in April 2026 rejected a patent application naming an AI system- Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) as an inventor, citing inter alia that “AI-based non-human entity as an inventor is not permissible”, under the Patents Act.
The decision comes after different fora in the US, EU, Australia and Japan have also rejected Dr. Stephen Thaler’s patent application citing DABUS as an inventor given the legislative position that an inventor has to be a natural person. While South Africa appears to be the only Patent Office that has granted a patent to the application identifying DABUS as an inventor.
The application was filed in India by Stephen L. Thaler for an invention titled “Food Container And Devices And Methods For Attracting Enhanced Attention” (application no. IN 202017019068) in May 2020.
One of the objections raised in the First Examination report was that the application is not eligible for a patent as per Sections 2 and 6 of the Act as the first inventor is an AI. In the response to of this objection, the Applicant noted that,
“…the DABUS is the true deviser of the invention and that no person or persons, can claim to have devised the invention. Further, the invention was truly and solely conceived by the DABUS…… DABUS should be acknowledged as the inventor of any resultant patents, with Stephen Thaler, the machine’s owner, as the assignee of any such patents.”
A pre-grant opposition was also filed that asserted, in addition to ground of lack of inventive step, that the present application cannot be patented as it identifies an AI as an inventor. However, the Patent Office rejected this ground citing that Section 25(1)(f) of the Patents Act ,under which this objection was raised, did not contemplate an objection on the nature of inventorship, and rather was confined to examining whether the claimed subject matter constitutes an “invention” or is otherwise patentable under the Act.
The Controller, while rejecting the application, noted that the statutory framework does not recognise artificial intelligence as an inventor, as the Parliament has not expressly extended such recognition beyond natural persons. It was observed that an AI lacks legal personality and capacity, and therefore cannot own or transfer rights, make enforceable declarations, or assume legal responsibilities. Consequently, it was held that AI as an inventor cannot satisfy the requirements under Sections 7 and 10 of the Patents Act, including providing a valid declaration of inventorship or proof of right under Section 7(2), which must be derived from a legally recognised inventor. Mere ownership of a machine was held insufficient to confer entitlement in the absence of a valid assignment. Additionally, the claimed invention was found to lack an inventive step in light of the prior art.
Earlier this year, the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025 (“Guidelines”) had clarified the position on inventorship by AI. The Guidelines provided that AI related inventions can be categorised into- (i) AI-generated inventions and (ii) AI-assisted inventions. It noted that inventions created by the AI systems autonomously or with limited human inventions are not patentable. However, AI-assisted inventions, i.e., inventions developed using AI tools can be patented provided they meet the patentability criteria and technical effect.
While the legislation as it exists today does not contemplate an inventor other than a natural person, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce in its 161st report had recommended a separate category of rights for AI and AI related inventions. It further recommended for the Department to make efforts in reviewing the existing legislations of the Patents Act to incorporate the emerging technologies of AI and AI related inventions in their ambit.
