Bangladesh's Patent Law Has Never Asked Whether AI Can Be Considered An Inventor
Bangladesh implemented its Patents Act in 2023 while the global DABUS dispute over AI inventorship was at its height, yet the law remains silent on whether a non-human can hold a patent. The omission leaves Bangladeshi inventors, patent lawyers, and the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks without legislative guidance when the first AI-generated invention application arrives.
The DABUS case began in 2018 when English physicist Stephen Thaler filed patent applications naming his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor of a food container with a fractal design and a flashing emergency light beacon. Thaler argued that DABUS, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, was the true inventor. The dispute triggered five years of litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
How courts around the world ruled
The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that only natural human beings can be patent holders and inventors. The United States, European Union, and Germany reached the same conclusion. Australia initially recognized that an inventor could be non-human, but the full Federal Court overruled that decision, holding that the Patents Act 1990 requires a natural person.
South Africa stands alone as the only country that recognized AI systems like DABUS as inventors in its patent office. India refused Thaler's application, citing that its Patents Act 1970 requires an inventor to be a natural person.
Bangladesh's statutory gap
Section 2(14) of Bangladesh's Patents Act 2023 defines "Person" as a natural legal person. The definition was inherited from previous drafting conventions, not adopted after weighing the economic, philosophical, or doctrinal arguments. No policy paper, court decision, or departmental guidance has examined the issue.
For legal professionals working in patent law, the gap is practical, not theoretical. An unresolved inventorship question can leave a patent application vulnerable to rejection at filing or invalidation after years of financial investment. The AI Learning Path for Patent Agents covers the emerging intersection of AI and patent practice that jurisdictions like Bangladesh are only beginning to confront.
What happens when the first DABUS-style filing arrives
Students and researchers in Bangladesh already use AI for simulations, engineering design optimization, logo creation, and graphics work. The law recognizes AI as a tool for assistance. What it does not answer is what happens when AI innovates without meaningful human input.
"Patent law decisions are never just abstract philosophy, rather, they determine, in very concrete terms, regarding who can be the legal owner and commercialize an invention," the source analysis states. If an applicant files a DABUS-style application in Bangladesh, the patent office will face a new crisis without legislative guidance, domestic precedent, or settled international consensus.
Legal professionals tracking AI's impact on intellectual property frameworks can find broader coverage under AI for Legal, which addresses how courts and regulators are handling machine-generated work product.
Why this matters for legal professionals
Bangladesh has an advantage: other jurisdictions have already litigated the question and provided answers. A statutory clarification on whether a non-human can be an inventor would close the gap without requiring Bangladesh to take a philosophical position. The window for proactive legislation will not stay open indefinitely. Patent attorneys and in-house counsel advising clients on AI-assisted inventions should prepare for the first filing to force the issue, and should press for a clear statutory definition before that happens.
Your membership also unlocks:
