DABUS or Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience is an artificial intelligence that makes 2 (two) inventions in the form of lighting and drink containers. The two inventions are then submitted to 3 (three) patent offices, namely the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom by naming DABUS as their inventors. This is a new phenomenon in the legal world, especially in the field of Intellectual Property Rights, because there has never been artificial intelligence that makes inventions let alone apply for patents on their inventions. The purpose of this study is to determine the legal position of artificial intelligence as a legal subject in the Indonesian legal system and the regulation of patents filed by artificial intelligence entities according to the legal system of the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. This study uses a normative juridical legal research method with statutory approach and comparative approach. The type of data used is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary data obtained through literature. Data obtained from literature studies were analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results show that the Indonesian patent law system has absolutely no regulation regarding artificial intelligence in any case. Likewise with the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, there are no arrangements at all regarding artificial intelligence applying for patents on its inventions such as DABUS. Therefore, it can be concluded that DABUS is not considered a legal subject in the Indonesian legal system, so the implication is that DABUS cannot apply for patents on its inventions, in accordance with Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents. The European Union and the United Kingdom also do not consider artificial intelligence as a legal subject, in accordance with the European Patent Convention 2016 and the UK Patents Act 1977. Only the United States is still open to the possibility of naming DABUS or artificial intelligence as a patent holder for its invention because it does not limit inventors to humans but rather individuals, in accordance with United States Code 35.