DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), as the sole inventor. The decision represents India’s first substantive determination on whether an AI system can be recognised as an inventor under the Patents Act, 1970, and aligns India with the prevailing global position that inventorship under current patent law remains human-centric.

Background of the Application

The application related to a food container with a fractal wall profile, asserted to have been autonomously generated by DABUS without human intervention. Dr. Thaler claimed entitlement to the invention as the owner of the AI system and filed international applications across the world, including India. He argued that he, as the owner of the DABUS source code and the hardware on which it operated, was entitled to the benefit of inventions autonomously generated by the system, and that the Patents Act, 1970 does not expressly prohibit non-human inventors.

During prosecution of Indian Patent application, objections were raised on two principal grounds:

1. Non-compliance with statutory requirements relating to inventorship, and
2. Lack of inventive step.

Parallelly, a pre-grant opposition was also filed, leading the Patent Office to issue two separate orders—one under Section 15 (refusal after examination) and another disposing of the pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1).

Key Findings on Inventorship

In the Section 15 refusal order, the Controller held that an AI system cannot be recognised as the “true and first inventor” under Indian law. The reasoning was grounded in a combined reading of Sections 2(1)(y), 6, 7, and 10 of the Patents Act, which collectively presuppose an inventor capable of legal personality, executing declarations, holding rights, and assigning those rights to an Applicant. The Controller further noted that Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, while extending the term “person” to companies and associations, operates only in respect of entities capable of legal recognition, which AI systems are not.

The Controller rejected the argument that the Patents Act does not expressly prohibit non-human inventors, holding that the statutory framework implicitly requires an inventor to be a natural or juristic person. Ownership of DABUS, its source code, or the hardware on which it operated was found insufficient to establish “proof of right” under Section 7(2), as such rights must flow from a legally recognised inventor. Reliance on PCT declarations was also dismissed, with the Controller clarifying that international procedural mechanisms cannot override mandatory requirements under Indian law.

Inventive Step and Pre‑Grant Opposition

Independently of the inventorship issue, the Controller held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), as it was found to be obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge, with no demonstrated technical advancement or unexpected effect. The Controller held that the mere adoption of a “fractal” geometric descriptor does not establish inventiveness in the absence of comparative experimental data or evidence of an unexpected technical advantage.

In the separate pre‑grant opposition order, the Patent Office clarified that inventorship-related objections are procedural in nature and cannot be sustained under Section 25(1)(f), which is confined to challenges concerning patentability of the invention rather than entitlement or compliance issues.

Significance of the Decision

The DABUS decision firmly establishes that, under the current Indian legal framework, AI-assisted inventions remain patentable only where a human inventor is identified. While the ruling leaves open broader policy debates on AI and innovation, it underscores that any shift toward recognising AI as an inventor would require legislative intervention, not judicial or administrative interpretation. The decision is consistent with outcomes in jurisdictions such as the UK, US, and EPO, reinforcing a global consensus on human inventorship under existing patent laws.