AI Cannot Be An “Inventor” According To Commissioner Of Patents

On June 9, 2025, the Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner) issued a decision refusing Canadian Patent Application No. 3,137,161 (the 161 Application) for a food container and enhanced signalling device, developed by the artificial intelligence (AI) system “DABUS”. The 161 Application referred to DABUS as the “inventor” of the application’s subject matter and DABUS’s creator and owner, Stephen L. Thaler (Thaler), as the applicant and DABUS’s legal representative.

The Commissioner concluded that the term “inventor”, as contemplated in the Patent Act (the Act) and Patent Rules (the Rules), is limited to natural persons, and does not include legal persons (e.g., corporations) or AI systems like DABUS. Consequently, the Commissioner held that DABUS is not a valid inventor, and that the absence of such an inventor precludes a valid transfer of rights to a legal representative who would then be permitted to file a valid patent application.

In reaching its conclusion, the Commissioner found that the grammatical and ordinary meaning of “inventor” (or in the context of the Act and the Rules) has not evolved to include both natural persons and machines. Further, the Commissioner rejected Thaler’s argument that statutory interpretation should follow a "dynamic approach" whereby the meaning ascribed to legislation adapts to "evolving social and material realities". The Commissioner determined that the interpretation of “inventor” to include an AI system would not represent a technological evolution as "inventor'' was not contemplated as being a piece of "technology", but rather a natural person or persons. Also, the Commissioner noted that the absence of an express prohibition designating an AI system as an "inventor" in the Act and the Rules was not deemed determinative.

Accordingly, the Commissioner decided that the 161 Application could not be filed by either DABUS or Thaler. Under section 41 of the Act, Thaler has six months to appeal the Commissioner’s decision to the Federal Court of Canada.

Editor’s Note:  DWW is the agent for the applicant in this case.

Summary By: Uday Bahal