Thaler v. Vidal — AI as Patent Inventor Denied (Fed. Cir., cert. denied)
Fed. Cir. · Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)
Stephen Thaler, inventor of the 'DABUS' AI system, sought to list DABUS as the inventor on two patent applications. The Federal Circuit ruled in August 2022 that under the Patent Act 'inventor' must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2023, settling U.S. law: AI systems cannot be inventors of record.
Technical detail
Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023). Held: 35 U.S.C. § 100(f) limits 'inventor' to a natural person; no statutory ambiguity permitting AI inventorship. USPTO issued February 2024 inventorship guidance applying this rule and requiring named human inventors with significant contributions.
Who is protected: (Doctrinal — establishes that AI cannot be a patent inventor of record)
Who must comply: Patent applicants before USPTO and U.S. federal courts
Key facts
| Jurisdiction | Fed. Cir. |
|---|---|
| Level | Federal |
| Status | In effect |
| Protection strength | Stronger protection |
| Effective date | 2022-08-05 |
| Citation | Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023) |
| Topics | AI disclosure and transparency · automated decision-making |
| Last verified | 2026-06-17 |
| Official source | Thaler v. Vidal — CourtListener Fed. Cir. opinion ↗ |
Related AI disclosure and transparency rules elsewhere
- FTC Act Section 5 (unfair/deceptive AI) · In effect
- FCRA (AI in credit & background checks) · In effect
- ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination) · In effect
- Title VII / ADA (AI hiring) · In effect
- COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data) · In effect
- Copyright Office AI Guidance · In effect
See something wrong or out of date? Submit a correction — every entry must carry a verifiable official source.