{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.257Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-18", "slug": "thaler-v-comptroller-dabus-uk", "titleZh": "DABUS 英国最高法院发明人案", "formalName": "Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks", "aliases": [ "DABUS UK", "Thaler UKSC" ], "summary": "英国最高法院一致裁定，DABUS 不是《1977 年专利法》意义上的发明人，机器所有权本身也不能产生申请专利的权利。", "professionalSummary": "[2023] UKSC 49 解释第 7、13 条并强调发明人必须是自然人；裁判不判断 DABUS 是否事实上创造了相关发明。", "whyItMatters": "该案给英国 AI 发明人及权利来源问题提供了最高层级答案。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "patent", "secondaryTopics": [], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action" ], "jurisdiction": "英国·最高法院", "industries": [ "专利", "AI 研发" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 30, "impactScope": 22, "institutionalLevel": 20, "crossBorder": 9, "sustainedCoverage": 14, "total": 95 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-18:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-18", "formalName": "Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks", "identifier": "UKSC/2021/0201", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "UKSC/2021/0201", "neutralCitation": "[2023] UKSC 49" }, "forum": "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", "jurisdiction": "英国·最高法院", "type": "patent-appeal", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2023-12-20", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-18:event-1", "matterId": "matter-18", "proceedingId": "matter-18:proceeding-1", "date": "2023-12-20", "type": "judgment", "title": "英国最高法院驳回上诉", "summary": "英国最高法院裁定机器不能成为法定发明人，且机器所有权不能自动提供专利申请权来源。", "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1", "matter-18:claim-procedure", "matter-18:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-18:document-1", "familyId": "matter-18:family-1", "matterId": "matter-18", "eventId": "matter-18:event-1", "title": "Thaler v. Comptroller-General — [2023] UKSC 49", "originalTitle": "Thaler v. Comptroller-General — [2023] UKSC 49", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "uk-supreme-court", "publishedAt": "2023-12-20", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "UKSC/2021/0201", "neutralCitation": "[2023] UKSC 49" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-18:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-18", "eventId": "matter-18:event-1", "text": "英国最高法院裁定机器不能成为法定发明人，且机器所有权不能自动提供专利申请权来源。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-12-20" }, { "id": "matter-18:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-18", "eventId": "matter-18:event-1", "text": "UKSC/2021/0201 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-12-20" }, { "id": "matter-18:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-18", "eventId": "matter-18:event-1", "text": "2023-12-20，案卷记录“英国最高法院驳回上诉”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-12-20" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "Stephen Thaler 在英国为 DABUS 所称产生的发明申请专利，把机器列为发明人，并主张其对机器的所有权提供申请权来源。英国最高法院一致驳回上诉，认定法定发明人必须是自然人，机器所有权也不能自动产生申请专利的权利。", "partiesZh": [ "Stephen Thaler", "英国专利、外观设计和商标总审计长" ], "aiSystemZh": "DABUS", "challengedConductZh": "英国专利机关拒绝接受 DABUS 为发明人以及以机器所有权作为申请权来源。", "allegedHarmZh": "Thaler 主张其作为 DABUS 所有人有权申请相关专利；法院认为现行法不支持该路径。", "proceduralOriginZh": "案件以 UKSC/2021/0201 进入英国最高法院，并于 2023 年 12 月 20 日作出 [2023] UKSC 49。", "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1", "matter-18:claim-procedure", "matter-18:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "matterId": "matter-18", "titleZh": "英国法下的发明人资格", "questionZh": "DABUS 能否成为《1977 年专利法》第 7、13 条意义上的发明人？", "contextZh": "最高法院解释法定发明人概念，没有判断机器是否在事实或技术意义上产生了发明。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "英国最高法院一致认定法定发明人必须是自然人，DABUS 不能被指定。", "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood:position-1", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "主张 DABUS 应作为实际产生发明的主体被列名。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood:position-2", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "sideZh": "专利机关", "positionZh": "认为法定制度只允许自然人为发明人，并获最高法院维持。", "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "matterId": "matter-18", "titleZh": "机器所有权能否产生专利申请权", "questionZh": "即使机器不能成为发明人，机器所有人能否仅凭所有权取得申请机器产生成果的权利？", "contextZh": "申请人需要指出法定权利来源；对机器的财产所有权不等同于从法定发明人取得权利。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "最高法院认定机器所有权本身不能提供《专利法》要求的申请权来源。", "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement:position-1", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "主张其拥有 DABUS，因此有权取得机器所产生发明的专利。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement:position-2", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "sideZh": "专利机关", "positionZh": "认为该所有权理论没有满足法定权利来源要求。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "matterId": "matter-18", "titleZh": "DABUS 是否事实上创造发明", "questionZh": "法院是否确认 DABUS 在技术或事实意义上自主创造了申请中的发明？", "contextZh": "发明人资格和权利来源足以解决上诉，法院没有必要验证申请人对系统创造过程的描述。", "topic": "patent", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention:position-1", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "将 DABUS 描述为实际产生发明的系统。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention:position-2", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "sideZh": "法院裁判范围", "positionZh": "判决不接受也不否定该技术事实，只回答法定资格和权利来源。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-18:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-18", "proceedingId": "matter-18:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-18:event-1", "date": "2023-12-20", "outcomeZh": "英国最高法院一致驳回 Thaler 上诉，维持 DABUS 不能作为发明人及机器所有权不能产生申请权来源的结论。", "holdingsZh": [ "《1977 年专利法》所称发明人必须是自然人。", "DABUS 不能被列为法定发明人。", "对 DABUS 的所有权不会自动赋予 Thaler 申请其所称发明的权利。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院依据第 7、13 条的制度结构解释发明人和申请权来源。", "机器不是法定发明人，因此也不存在仅凭机器所有权即可承继的法定发明人权利。" ], "reliefZh": "驳回上诉并维持申请不能按所提交发明人信息继续；未命令专利机关授予专利。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "判决不判断 DABUS 是否事实上创造了发明，也不解决自然人使用 AI 辅助发明时的发明人识别。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "这是英国最高法院终局判决，Matter 标记为已裁判，没有更高国内上诉程序。", "documentIds": [ "matter-18:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-18:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-factual-invention-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-factual-invention-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-inventor-personhood", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-ownership-entitlement", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-18-matter-18:issue-factual-invention-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-18-matter-18:issue-factual-invention-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-18", "issueId": "matter-18:issue-factual-invention", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "uk-supreme-court", "slug": "uk-supreme-court", "name": "UK Supreme Court", "homepage": "https://www.supremecourt.uk/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "boston-college-law-review", "slug": "boston-college-law-review", "name": "Boston College Law Review", "homepage": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，出版平台提供作者、卷期、页码和稳定文章记录。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "patently-o", "slug": "patently-o", "name": "Patently-O", "homepage": "https://patentlyo.com/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "长期追踪美国专利判例和政策的专业出版物，通常深链案卷材料；评论与裁判结论分开。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 15, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 88 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/thaler-v-comptroller-dabus-uk" }