Written by Micah Drayton, Bianca Lindau, Takahiro Miyazaki and Crystel Saraie.
As AI becomes more advanced, a contentious issue has emerged in the intellectual property world: Can AI be named as an inventor for innovations it creates or contributes to?
What Is the Role of an Inventor Under Patent Law?
Under most patent laws globally, an inventor must be a natural person. While AI can assist in the invention process, most legal systems are not yet ready to credit AI itself as an inventor.
The DABUS Case: A Global Benchmark
The DABUS AI system—developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler—has been central to this debate. DABUS autonomously generated two inventions, and patent applications were filed worldwide listing DABUS as the sole inventor.
United States
- USPTO rejected the application, citing the Patent Act which refers to inventors as a “person.”
- Human involvement is essential—even in AI-assisted innovations.
United Kingdom
- UKIPO and courts rejected the DABUS application.
- Cited the UK Patents Act 1977, affirming that only humans can be inventors.
- The UK Supreme Court noted that legislative change would be needed to accommodate AI inventors.
Germany
- German courts rejected DABUS as an inventor but opened the door for the human who deployed or programmed the AI to be named instead.
- Reinforced the requirement that a patent be filed by or on behalf of a human inventor.
Japan
- JPO ruled that AI cannot be named as an inventor under Japanese law.
- Uses the term “Shimei,” referring to a natural person, in its patent regulations.
Why AI Cannot Be an Inventor (Yet)
- Legal Definitions
- Most national patent statutes use language that explicitly or implicitly requires inventors to be humans.
- Accountability & Rights
- Patents come with legal responsibilities. AI cannot own property, sign contracts, or be held accountable in the same way as a human.
- Lack of Consensus
- There is no international agreement on how to treat AI in inventorship, leading to inconsistent treatment across jurisdictions.
- Public Policy Considerations
- Granting inventorship to AI may undermine incentives for human innovation and complicate ownership rights.
Can You Patent AI-Assisted Inventions?
Yes. While AI itself cannot be an inventor, AI-assisted inventions can be patented as long as a human inventor is identified and has made a meaningful contribution to the conception or development of the invention.
Conclusion
Across most jurisdictions, the consensus remains clear: AI cannot be legally recognized as an inventor. This has significant implications for how AI-generated innovations are handled. Inventors and organizations using AI must ensure that the human role in invention is well-documented and that patent applications reflect this reality. While the law may evolve in the future, for now, human inventorship remains a cornerstone of global patent systems.
This publication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher, and distributor of this publication and/or any linked publication are not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. Pursuant to applicable rules of professional conduct, portions of this publication may constitute Attorney Advertising. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
[1] Thaman, A. (2024, September 12). Can you patent artificial intelligence in the UK?. Source Advisors. https://sourceadvisors.co.uk/insights/knowledge-hub/can-you-patent-artificial-intelligence-in-the-uk/
[2] The Federal Register. Federal Register :: Request Access. (2024, February 13). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/13/2024-02623/inventorship-guidance-for-ai-assisted-inventions
[3] Artificial Intelligence. (n.d.). https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/in-focus/ict/artificial-intelligence
[4] Germany: AI cannot be named as inventor – insights from the Bundesgerichtshof’s dabus decision. Norton Rose Fulbright. (2024, July). https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-gb/knowledge/publications/7de4a9ba/germany-ai-cannot-be-named-as-inventor-insights-from-the-bundesgerichtshofs-dabus-decision
[5] Kawahara, T. (2024, February). Examination guideline for AI-related inventions by JPO. https://www.jpaa.or.jp/en/cms/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Examination-Guideline-for-AI-related-inventions-by-JPO.pdf
[6] Sekiguchi, T. (2025, February 7). Japan’s Dabus AI patent ruling affirms status quo but highlights global IP challenges: Mlex: Specialist News and analysis on legal risk and regulation. MLex. https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2294484/japan-s-dabus-ai-patent-ruling-affirms-status-quo-but-highlights-global-ip-challenges
[7] McDermott, E. (2024, February 12). USPTO AI guidance reiterates Dabus Decision. IP Watchdog. https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/02/12/uspto-ai-guidance-reiterates-dabus-decision/id=173263/
[8] Reeve, N. (2024, January 21). The UK Supreme Court dabus decision: The end or just a bump in the road for ai inventors?. IP Watchdog. https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/01/21/uk-supreme-court-dabus-decision-end-just-bump-road-ai-inventors/id=172193/#
[9] AI cannot be named as patent “inventor”, UK Supreme Court rules. The Guardian. (2023, December 20). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/20/ai-cannot-be-named-as-patent-inventor-uk-supreme-court-rules#:~:text=The%20US%2Dbased%20developer%20claims,of%20%E2%80%A6%20the%201977%20act.%E2%80%9D
[10] Kanno, R. (2025, February 3). AI cannot be recognized as inventor in patent cases: Japan Ip Court. The Mainichi. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20250203/p2a/00m/0sc/012000c
[11] Kukuu, A. (2022, September). WIPO. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_conv_ge_2_22/wipo_ip_conv_ge_2_22_3.pdf