Timeline of AI law in India

Rejoinder time extended

The court allows four weeks for Thaler's rejoinder and lists the appeal on 19 January 2027.

Thaler responds

Thaler tells MediaNama that the Office was partly right and that he is deferring the question of appeal to counsel.

Registration confirmed as still standing

MediaNama independently verifies that the RAGHAV registration remains on the Indian register.

Related Copyright Office order

The Registrar of Copyrights rejects Thaler's DABUS artwork application, holding that DABUS cannot be an author.

Application rejected

The Registrar holds the work original, DABUS not capable of authorship, and Thaler the person who caused the work; the application is rejected as filed.

Copyright Office rejects DABUS application

The Registrar of Copyrights holds that DABUS cannot be an author under Section 2(d)(vi); the order does not mention Suryast.

Notice issued on appeal

The Delhi High Court issues notice; the Patent Office accepts it and is given six weeks to reply.

Appeal first listed

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 36/2026 is listed before Justice Jyoti Singh; no hearing takes place because lawyers are abstaining from work.

Final hearing; order reserved

Thaler declines an offer to amend the author entry to name himself. The order is reserved.

Amicus curiae appointed

Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan is appointed to assist the Registrar on a pro bono basis.

First hearing

The Registrar hears Thaler's representatives following a hearing notice of 8 April 2026.

Refusal analysed

SpicyIP publishes its analysis, noting that the refusal went beyond inventorship to examine patentability.

Indian Patent Office refuses the application

An Assistant Controller refuses application No. 202017019068 on two grounds: AI cannot be an inventor, and claim 1 lacks inventive step.

Delhi High Court direction

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposes of Thaler's petition, directing the Registrar to conclude the proceedings, preferably within eight weeks of the hearing.