An AI is recognised as a patent inventor

Where things stand (as of 12 Oct 2026)

All six patent systems named in the question reject AI inventorship. The trend over the past year has been to harden that position, not soften it:

• US. Thaler v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022) held that an inventor must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied cert in April 2023. The USPTO's November 2025 revised guidance (90 Fed. Reg. 54636) says AI is a tool and "cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors." A Fox Rothschild note from September 2026 reports that no bill has been introduced to amend 35 U.S.C. §100(f).
• UK. Thaler [2023] UKSC 49 held that an inventor must be a natural person. A later attempt via divisional applications failed in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal (artificialinventor.com, updated 6 Mar 2026).
• EPC. The Legal Board decided J 8/20 in 2021. A board of appeal (3.2.07) then dismissed the DABUS divisional appeal in T 0528/25, decided 5 Feb 2026. The EPO's inventorship page (updated 14 Aug 2026) says "only a human being can be named as an inventor."
• Japan. The Supreme Court's Second Petty Bench dismissed Thaler's final appeal on 4 March 2026 (Yonhap, 6 Mar 2026). The JPO's Patent System Subcommittee is still studying AI inventions. At its 16 June 2026 meeting it took a cautious, harmonisation-first line. Industry views were split, and no amendment to the Patent Act was proposed (TMI blog, 23 Jun 2026; JPO materials).
• Korea. The Seoul Administrative Court (2023) and Seoul High Court (16 May 2024) both rejected DABUS. The appeal to the Supreme Court (2024Du45177), filed 18 June 2024, appears to be still pending: Dale & Lessmann listed it as pending in January 2026, the case database lbox.kr shows no result, and I found no news of a decision. The IP ministry's 9 June 2026 guide says AI cannot obtain patents and only a human who substantially contributed can be an inventor.
• China. CNIPA's re-examination decision No. 1373038 upheld the refusal, and the Examination Guidelines bar naming an AI as inventor. Litigation is at the Beijing IP Court ((2024)京73行初6353号); any appeal would go to the Supreme People's Court's IP Tribunal. On 7 Sep 2026 the Supreme People's Court issued an Opinion on AI disputes (法发〔2026〕10号). Under it, a natural person who makes a creative contribution is the inventor, and AI-related inventions are not protected where natural persons made no substantive contribution.

Reference class and base rate

Since 2019, DABUS-type tests have been decided at final or near-final level in roughly 15 to 20 jurisdictions. Within the listed systems, every final-level outcome has gone against AI inventorship: the 2023 US cert denial, UKSC 2023, the EPO boards in 2021 and 2026, and Japan's Supreme Court in 2026. The successes for AI have been South Africa (no substantive examination, and excluded by the question) and Australia's first-instance ruling, which was reversed on appeal. No legislature anywhere has enacted AI inventorship. My informed prior for any listed system flipping is about 0.3–0.4% per year in total, rising somewhat later in the window as AI capability grows.

Paths to YES

1. Korean Supreme Court reverses in the pending appeal. I put about 0.5% on a pro-AI ruling, given the text of Patent Act Article 33 ("person who made the invention"), the Civil Act's rules on legal capacity, and unanimous foreign authority. That contributes about 0.45%, front-loaded into 2026–2028.
2. China's Supreme People's Court on appeal. Its own September 2026 Opinion all but rules this out: about 0.05%.
3. New test cases at another court of final appeal or the EPO boards. About 0.2%.
4. A statute in any of the six systems, by end-2031. About 1%. Even if strong AI creates pressure to protect AI-generated inventions (Japanese pharma companies have asked for this), the likely legislative designs give rights to the owner, deem a human to be the inventor, or create sui generis rights. They do not designate the AI itself as inventor. Japan's subcommittee itself noted that AI is not a bearer of rights and that rewarding it creates no incentive. Legislation also takes several years.
5. A borderline statute or holding that a resolver counts as YES. About 0.3%.

Hazard model

I computed quarterly hazards for these components in Python and accumulated them. The Korean component follows a geometric distribution of decision timing; the legislative hazard rises linearly over time. Cumulative probability is about 0.13% at end-2026, 0.6% at end-2027, 0.9% at end-2028, 1.2% at end-2029, 1.6% at end-2030 and 2.0% at end-2031.

Strongest case against my estimate

AI capability may surge by 2029–2031, with autonomous labs already producing patent-worthy process improvements. A state seeking AI leadership (China, Korea or Japan) could then legislate fast and, for transparency, allow the AI to be listed as an inventor or co-inventor. I hold this at about 1% because every current official signal from 2025–26 points the other way: the USPTO guidance, the Korean ministry's guide, the Supreme People's Court Opinion, the EPO, Japan's Supreme Court, and the IP5 offices' emphasis on harmonisation. Any statute would also need to be enacted, not merely proposed, inside the window.

Sources

• artificialinventor.com/patent (6 Mar 2026)
• yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260306086700073 (6 Mar 2026)
• epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t250528eu1
• epo.org/en/news-events/in-focus/digital-innovations/inventorship (14 Aug 2026)
• shinkim.com/kor/media/lawinfo/pdf/373
• dalelessmann.com/ai-inventor-coming-to-canada-maybe-not (29 Jan 2026)
• kipo.go.kr press release ntatcSeq=20927 (9 Jun 2026)
• court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/511171.html and the Legal500 text of 法发〔2026〕10号 (Sep 2026)
• cnipa.gov.cn/art/2024/8/13/art_2648_194171.html
• tmi.gr.jp/eyes/blog/2026/18487.html
• jpo.go.jp 56th Subcommittee materials (16 Jun 2026)
• brookskushman.com global-consensus series (22 Jul 2026)
• foxrothschild.com (Sep 2026)

Question. By the last day of each quarter, has a statute or a court of final appeal in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Japan, South Korea, or under the European Patent Convention recognised an AI system as the inventor on a patent?

Definitions.

• AI system as inventor: the AI system itself is legally eligible to be designated as sole inventor or joint inventor of a patented invention, not merely credited as a tool or named in the description. Recognition need not give the AI ownership, legal personality, or the right to apply for a patent.
• Recognition: an express statutory provision or a dispositive judicial holding accepting AI inventorship, either generally or for a particular patent or patent application. An actual patent grant is not required if the legal eligibility of the AI to be designated as inventor is established.
• Statute: enacted primary legislation, with all required assent or promulgation completed. A future commencement date does not disqualify enacted legislation. For the EPC route, an adopted and ratified amendment to the Convention establishing that eligibility counts; a proposal to amend it does not.
• Court of final appeal: the US Supreme Court, UK Supreme Court, Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, Supreme Court of Japan, or Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, or a successor exercising the same jurisdiction. China here means the mainland patent-law system. Lower-court judgments do not count merely because no appeal is taken or further review is refused. Under the EPC, a final merits decision of an EPO Legal or Technical Board of Appeal, or a decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal determining the relevant legal question, counts.

Resolves YES if an official publication within the Resolution window establishes either qualifying statutory recognition or a qualifying court/EPO holding in at least one listed jurisdiction. A statute may permit AI inventorship subject to conditions; a holding may be limited to one AI system or one invention. Recognition as a joint inventor with humans is sufficient.

Resolves NO / Exclusions.

• Bills, consultations, recommendations, patent-office guidance, administrative regulations, and executive statements do not qualify as statutes.
• Patent-office acceptance or grant alone, a published application naming an AI, and an applicant's assertion of AI inventorship do not qualify.
• Dicta, dissents, permission to appeal, remands that leave AI inventorship undecided, and refusal of discretionary review do not qualify.
• Recognising patents for AI-generated or AI-assisted inventions while designating only humans as inventors does not qualify. Neither does granting rights to an AI's owner or operator without recognising the AI itself as inventor.
• National legislation or national judgments from other EPC contracting states do not qualify solely because those states belong to the EPC. Recognition outside the listed patent-law systems, including South Africa, does not qualify.
• Resolve NO for a horizon if no qualifying publication has appeared by that horizon.

Resolving source. Official enacted texts and judgments only, a narrower source requirement than Public confirmation (A2): US public laws on congress.gov or govinfo.gov and opinions on supremecourt.gov; UK Acts on legislation.gov.uk and judgments on supremecourt.uk; Chinese laws published by the National People's Congress on npc.gov.cn or flk.npc.gov.cn and Supreme People's Court judgments on court.gov.cn or its official judgment database; Japanese laws in the Official Gazette or laws.e-gov.go.jp and Supreme Court judgments on courts.go.jp; South Korean laws in the Official Gazette or law.go.kr and Supreme Court judgments on scourt.go.kr; and EPC amendment instruments, ratification records, and Boards of Appeal decisions published by the EPO on epo.org. Apply the Resolution window and Resolution date (A3): use the qualifying official publication date, not the hearing, decision, or invention date. Once YES, always YES for later horizons, even if the rule is later reversed or repealed.