The Tel Aviv District Court recently issued a noteworthy ruling in 33353-05-23 Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (31 December 2025), affirming that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be registered as an inventor under Israeli law. The decision upholds the Patent Commissioner’s previous refusal to register patent applications naming an AI system as the sole inventor, clarifying that the legal definition of “inventor” remains tied to human agency.

Background

This case is the latest chapter in a worldwide legal campaign led by Dr. Stephen Thaler and the Artificial Inventor Project. Since 2019, Thaler has challenged patent offices globally, asserting that his AI system, “DABUS,” should be recognized as an inventor for autonomously generated inventions.

As we highlighted in our previous update on the UK Supreme Court’s ruling, these efforts have met consistent resistance in major jurisdictions – including the US, UK, EU, and Australia. These courts have all concluded that patent statutes were designed with human inventors in mind, rejecting the notion of machine inventorship.

Israel District Court Ruling

At the heart of its analysis, the District Court focused on the question of whether the term “inventor” could be interpreted to include machines for the purpose of the Israel Patents Law, 1967.

The District Court determined that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the term “inventor” is intrinsically linked to human agency and does not extend to machines. Furthermore, the Court noted that expanding this definition would create inconsistencies with other statutory provisions, such as those regarding the transfer of rights and legal capacity, which are fundamentally built upon the foundation of human or legal personhood.

From a purposive standpoint, the District Court held that the underlying objectives of patent protection do not necessitate the recognition of non-human inventors. It emphasized that any fundamental shift in intellectual property policy – especially one involving the creation of new legal categories with significant socio-economic implications – is a matter for the legislature rather than judicial intervention. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, concluding that under current Israeli law, an AI system cannot be recognized as an inventor.

Conclusions

The District Court’s decision does not break new ground; rather, it firmly cements the status quo by affirming the Patent Commissioner’s position. By rejecting machine inventorship, the District Court has also aligned Israel with the prevailing international consensus, alongside all major jurisdictions (except for South Africa, which accepted Thaler’s application – though without substantive examination).

With Israel joining the worldwide consensus, it appears that the era of challenging the courts with “AI-as-sole-inventor” cases has reached its practical limit. These cases bypass the more practical and urgent question for modern R&D: What level of human intervention is required for an AI-assisted invention to be patentable? In Israel, we will likely have to wait for a “test case” involving both human and AI contributions – rather than purely autonomous generation – to see how the law adapts to integrated R&D processes, unless the legislature acts first.

A potential roadmap for this next phase can already be found in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s recent Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions. The guidance focuses on the human element within the AI-assisted process, and its key takeaways include:

  • AI is a Tool: Treating AI as a sophisticated instrument, not a creator.
  • Significant Human Contribution: Requiring a natural person to provide a “significant contribution” to the conception of the invention.
  • Traditional Standards: The USPTO maintains that the same legal standards for inventorship apply regardless of whether AI was used, focusing on the human mind’s role in the inventive process.

In summary, while the door appears to be closed on machine-only inventorship, the focus is now shifting toward the nature of combined human and AI creation. For innovators, the goal is no longer to name the machine, but to ensure that human “conception” remains sufficiently documented and central to the inventive process.