The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is profoundly transforming the landscape of innovation. AI systems are increasingly capable of generating original inventions, prompting a fundamental question: can AI be legally recognized as an inventor under patent law? Recent judicial rulings and ongoing debates highlight the tensions between technological progress and existing legal frameworks.
Sommaire
- The DABUS case: when artificial intelligence seeks inventorship rights
The DABUS case transcends a mere legal dispute; it encapsulates the tension between technological innovation and current law. DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an AI system developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler. He argued that two inventions a fractal-structured food container and a signaling device were created without any human inventive input. Accordingly, he requested that DABUS be named as the sole inventor in patent applications filed worldwide.
Patent offices in the United Kingdom, United States, European Patent Office (EPO), Australia, and Germany rejected these claims outright. In all these jurisdictions, the law requires that only a natural person can be legally designated as inventor.
The UK Supreme Court grounded its decision on the Patents Act 1977, which explicitly states the inventor must be a “natural person.”
Similarly, the EPO ruled in decisions J 0008/20 and J 0009/20 (December 21, 2021) that, although Article 81 EPC requires naming an inventor, Articles 60(1) and 81 EPC together imply that only a natural person can hold this status.
Similarly, the EPO ruled in cases J 0008/20 and J 0009/20 (decisions dated December 21, 2021) that although Article 81 EPC requires the designation of an inventor, a combined interpretation of this provision with Article 60(1) EPC leads to the conclusion that only a natural person may be designated as inventor. The EPO emphasized that AI cannot hold or transfer rights, a fundamental prerequisite for patent entitlement. Thus, AI lacks the legal capacity to be recognized as inventor under the European Patent Convention.
In the United States, the Federal Circuit ruled in Thaler v. Vidal (2022) that the term “individual” in the Patent Act refers solely to natural persons.
To date, only South Africa has diverged. In 2021, its Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted a patent application listing AI as inventor. However, this remains a special case due to South Africa’s declaratory patent system lacking substantive patentability examination, limiting its international authority.
- Can AI be the author of a work? The U.S. Courts’ clear ruling
The question of human authorship also arises in copyright law. Dr. Thaler attempted to register an AI-generated work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, again naming the AI as sole author.
In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decisively held in Thaler v. Perlmutter that a machine cannot hold copyright.
Although the Copyright Act does not define “author,” the Court reasoned that the law’s spirit clearly envisions a human being capable of intent, choice, and ownership of exclusive rights from the moment of creation.
The Court further underscored that AI is merely a tool, not a legal subject. Creation occurs through the human who programs or operates the machine, not the machine itself.
Moreover, the U.S. Copyright Office has consistently maintained a human authorship requirement for copyright registration, aligned with longstanding copyright doctrine.
- The situation in France: an approach based on human originality
Under French and European law, copyright protection depends on originality understood as an expression of the author’s personality.
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s established case law (Infopaq, Painer, Funke Medien), a work is protectable only if the author exercised free and creative choices revealing personal intellectual effort.
AI, however advanced, has no legal personality, creative capacity, or intent. It merely executes algorithms.
Consequently, neither in France nor in the EU can a work entirely generated by AI currently qualify for copyright protection.
- Toward legal evolution?
These cases affirm that human authorship remains a fundamental principle of intellectual property law. While some advocate reform to recognize AI’s autonomous creative role, most legal systems favor preserving a personalist concept of creation.
This does not leave operators of AI-generated works without recourse. Unfair competition law, contractual protections, and civil liability may offer alternative safeguards. However, meaningful change requires clear legislative action rather than judicial reinterpretation.
Legal and economic challenges
Protecting innovations generated by AI
The refusal to recognize AI as inventor creates significant obstacles to protecting innovations. Companies investing heavily in AI-generated inventions face a legal gap. Without patent protection, these inventions risk exposure to unauthorized copying and loss of competitive edge.
This situation may also discourage investment in AI research and development, as companies could be hesitant to commit resources to technologies whose outcomes lack protection under intellectual property rights.
Implications for companies and investors
Legal ambiguity surrounding AI inventorship recognition could have serious economic consequences. Companies might be reluctant to commercialize AI-derived inventions, fearing litigation or inadequate protection. Likewise, investors may hesitate to finance innovative AI projects given the lack of legal clarity.
Future perspectives for patent law
Recognizing AI as co-inventor?
In light of these challenges, some experts propose evolving patent law to permit AI recognition as co-inventor alongside a human. This would acknowledge AI’s active role in invention while retaining human accountability. Such change would require legislative amendment and international harmonization.
Adapting legal systems and professional practices
Legal systems might develop tailored mechanisms for AI-generated inventions, such as sui generis protection regimes designed to address their unique characteristics. Concurrently, IP professionals must adapt practices to assess and protect AI innovations effectively.
Conclusion
The question of AI recognition as inventor under patent law remains complex and contentious. Recent rulings uphold the necessity of a human inventor, yet technological progress pressures lawmakers to reconsider. Legal adaptation appears inevitable to keep pace with innovation and ensure effective protection of AI-generated inventions.
Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.
We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.
Join us on social media !
Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus firm team.
FAQ
1. Can AI be recognized as an inventor in patent applications?
Currently, most jurisdictions require inventors to be natural persons.
2. What are the implications for companies innovating with AI?
They may face difficulties protecting AI-generated inventions, impacting innovation strategies and investments.
3. Are there any exceptions?
Only South Africa has accepted a patent naming AI as inventor, but this remains isolated and lacks substantive examination.