Federal Circuit Upholds Human-Only Inventorship Requirement in Thaler v. Vidal AI Patent Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued its decision in Thaler v. Vidal, No. 21-2347 (Fed. Cir.), a pivotal case addressing whether artificial intelligence (AI) software can be designated as an inventor on a patent application. The court’s ruling affirms the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) position that inventorship is limited to natural persons under the Patent Act.

The dispute arose after the USPTO rejected two patent applications filed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who listed his AI system as the sole inventor. The USPTO determined that the applications were incomplete because they lacked a valid inventor, citing the Patent Act’s limitation of inventorship to "individuals." Dr. Thaler pursued multiple appeals, culminating in the Federal Circuit review.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO and the district court, holding that the Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons. Although the Act does not explicitly define "individual," the court relied on Supreme Court precedent from Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012), which interprets "individual" as a human being. The court also referenced dictionary definitions, the Dictionary Act, and its own prior ruling in Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., 734 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013), which confirmed that inventors cannot be corporations or sovereign entities.

Dr. Thaler advanced several arguments in favor of recognizing AI as an inventor. First, he contended that the term "inventor" in the Patent Act could encompass non-human entities. The Federal Circuit found these statutory interpretations unpersuasive, emphasizing the plain meaning of the term.

Second, Thaler argued that patenting AI-generated inventions would promote innovation and public disclosure. The court dismissed this policy rationale as speculative and unsupported by the Patent Act’s text or the case record.

Third, Thaler invoked the constitutional purpose of patents—to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"—arguing that AI inventorship would serve this goal. The Federal Circuit responded that this constitutional provision grants legislative authority to Congress, which has enacted the Patent Act with the current human-only inventorship requirement.

Finally, Thaler cited South Africa’s patent office granting patents listing his AI system as an inventor. The court noted that foreign patent laws and practices do not interpret the U.S. Patent Act and thus do not influence its application.

This decision confirms that, under current U.S. law, patent inventorship remains exclusively a human domain. However, as AI technologies continue to advance, the issue of AI inventorship is likely to reemerge in legislative, regulatory, and judicial contexts.

Legal practitioners and innovators should monitor developments in this area closely, as changes to patent law or policy could reshape the treatment of AI-generated inventions in the future.