# DABUS

DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence system created by Stephen Thaler, known for generating inventions and sparking global legal debates over AI inventorship in patent law.

DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an [artificial intelligence](https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/artificial-intelligence) system developed by Stephen Thaler, a researcher and entrepreneur. The system reportedly conceived of two novel products: a food container using fractal geometry for rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for emergency attention. Thaler filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions designating DABUS as the inventor, leading to a series of legal decisions on whether an AI can be named as an inventor under patent law. These cases have become a landmark in the intersection of [generative AI](https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/generative-ai) and intellectual property, raising questions about the definition of inventorship and the role of machines in innovation.

The DABUS system is based on Thaler's earlier work on artificial neural networks and his theory of "machine consciousness." It uses a [neural network](https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/neural-network) architecture that can generate novel concepts through a process Thaler calls "autonomous bootstrapping," where the system learns and creates without human intervention. The inventions were generated by DABUS independently, with Thaler acting as the applicant and owner of the system.

## Legal Proceedings in Australia

On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application with IP Australia for a patent on the food container, naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia rejected the application, holding that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) does not allow an AI machine to be treated as an inventor. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision, ordering reconsideration. However, on 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court reversed that ruling, stating that only a natural person can be an inventor under the Patents Act and Regulations. On 11 November 2022, the High Court refused Thaler special leave to appeal, ending the Australian challenge.

## European Patent Office and UK Decisions

Thaler filed two European patent applications on 17 October and 7 November 2018, covering the food container and the beacon. On 27 January 2020, the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected them because the inventor was listed as DABUS, not a human, citing Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention. The EPO's Board of Appeal dismissed Thaler's appeal on 21 December 2021, confirming that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity."

In the United Kingdom, Thaler filed similar applications on the same dates. The UK Intellectual Property Office rejected them, and a hearing officer upheld that decision on 4 December 2019. Thaler appealed to the Patents Court, where Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the rejection on 21 September 2020. The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal on 21 September 2021, with Arnold LJ and Laing LJ in the majority and Birss LJ dissenting. On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed Thaler's final appeal, holding that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person.

## United States and Other Jurisdictions

The USPTO refused Thaler's patent applications, ruling that only natural persons can be inventors. Thaler filed a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act and a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, but on 5 August 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO's position, concluding that the "who" in the patent statute refers to natural persons only.

In New Zealand, the Intellectual Property Office decided on 31 January 2022 that Thaler's application was void because no inventor was identified, as DABUS could not be an "actual devisor" under the Patents Act 2013. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed this in 2023.

In contrast, South Africa's Companies and Intellectual Property Commission accepted Thaler's application on 24 June 2021 and issued a notice of grant in July 2021, making it the first patent granted for an AI invention. However, this decision was not subject to the same substantive examination as in other jurisdictions.

## Swiss Ruling and Aftermath

On 26 June 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that AI systems like DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in Swiss patent applications, upholding the practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. The court dismissed Thaler's main request but accepted a subsidiary one: a human applicant who recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application could proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) remains subject to appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

The DABUS cases have prompted discussions among policymakers and legal scholars about adapting patent laws to accommodate AI-driven innovation. While most jurisdictions have maintained that inventors must be natural persons, the Swiss ruling offers a potential pathway for AI-generated inventions to be patented by human applicants. These developments continue to shape the legal landscape for [machine learning](https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/machine-learning) and [deep learning](https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/deep-learning) technologies in intellectual property.

## External links

- [Wikipedia: DABUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS)

---
Source: https://www.wikiprompt.org/wiki/dabus
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)
Last updated: 2026-09-14T04:30:47.097635+00:00