Eminence Growth Solutions, home
Menu

Cases and enforcement · Decided

Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022); E.D. Va. No. 1:20-cv-00903; cert. denied, No. 22-919 (2023)

Verified Checked against its sources on 3 sources quoted

Court or authority
US – Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; US – Eastern District of Virginia
Status
DECIDED: Federal Circuit affirmed on August 5, 2022; Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 24, 2023
Filed
August 6, 2020
Resolved
April 24, 2023
Case type
Patent Law
Plaintiffs or complainants
Stephen Thaler
Defendants
Katherine K. Vidal (Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office)
Legal issues
Whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system can be listed as the inventor on a patent application under U.S. patent law; Interpretation of the term 'inventor' in the Patent Act.

Summary

The USPTO refused Stephen Thaler's patent applications because they named only his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor. Thaler sued in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 6, 2020, and the court granted summary judgment to the USPTO. On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the Patent Act requires an inventor to be a natural person. Rehearing was denied in October 2022, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 24, 2023, leaving the rule in place under U.S. patent law.

Key dates

  1. August 6, 2020Filed
  2. April 24, 2023Resolved
  3. October 16, 2026Checked against sources
  4. October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: October 16, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

  1. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:20-cv-00903-LMB- TCB, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. ______________________ Decided: August 5, 2022

    Supports: Appeal and decision date

    Thaler challenged that conclusion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which agreed with the PTO and granted it summary judg- ment.

    Supports: District court outcome

    We, too, conclude that the Patent Act requires an "inventor" to be a natural person

    Supports: Holding

    Thaler v. Vidal, No. 2021-2347, opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Primary source

  2. Case 1:20-cv-00903-LMB-TCB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 25

    Supports: District court docket and filing date

    Complaint, Thaler v. Iancu, No. 1:20-cv-00903 (E.D. Va.) U.S. District Court, E.D. Va. (copy hosted by the Artificial Inventor Project) Primary source

  3. Apr 24 2023 Petition DENIED.

    Supports: Certiorari denied

    Decision Date: August 5, 2022 Rehearing Denied: October 20, 2022

    Supports: Rehearing denied

    Docket No. 22-919, Thaler v. Vidal Supreme Court of the United States Primary source

Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022); E.D. Va. No. 1:20-cv-00903; cert. denied, No. 22-919 (2023)”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/case-041/.

Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.

Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.