Legality Of Ai As Co-Inventor Under Current Epc Provisions.

11 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Framework under EPC

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC 1973, revised 2000):

Article 81 EPC: Only a “person” may be designated as an inventor.

Rule 19 EPC: Requires the inventor(s) to be named. The inventor is defined as the person who “has made the inventive contribution”.

Article 60 EPC: Only a natural person or legal entity can hold the rights to a patent; AI is not recognized as a legal person.

Key point: The EPC consistently refers to human inventors. There is no explicit recognition of AI systems as inventors.

2. Key Cases

Case 1: DABUS AI Cases (EPO & UK)

The DABUS AI (developed by Stephen Thaler) is the most famous AI inventor case.

EPO Board of Appeal Decision (2022) – Case T 0019/22

Facts: A European patent application claimed DABUS as the inventor.

Decision: The Board held:

Only a human being can be an inventor under the EPC.

“Inventor” is a legal concept linked to human authorship.

Naming AI as inventor is not allowed, and the application was refused.

Reasoning:

EPC Articles 81 and 60 require a natural person for inventorship.

AI cannot hold rights or duties under the EPC.

UK Court Decision

UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and UK High Court (2021) similarly rejected DABUS as inventor.

The reasoning aligned with EPO: “an inventor must be a person.”

Case 2: United States – DABUS

USPTO (2019–2020): Initially accepted a patent application listing AI as inventor but later rejected.

Federal Court of Appeals (2022): Confirmed that under US law, only natural persons can be inventors.

Relevance: Shows a global trend: AI is not recognized as an inventor.

Case 3: EPO Referral on AI Inventorship

While not formally published as a Board decision, there were multiple oral proceedings in EPO Boards of Appeal involving AI inventors:

Inventors listed AI or AI-assisted inventions.

Outcome: Boards consistently emphasized the human contribution is required. AI-generated inventions must designate a human who directed or contributed to the inventive step.

Case 4: European Patent Office – T 0324/12 (Generative Invention by Computer-Assisted Method)

Facts: A computer-assisted invention was claimed, but inventors were humans using software.

Decision:

The Board allowed the patent because humans contributed inventive steps, even if AI generated part of the output.

Importance:

Distinguishes between AI as a tool and AI as inventor.

Only human guidance counts toward inventorship under EPC.

Case 5: UK High Court – Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents (2021)

Facts: Stephen Thaler attempted to register DABUS as an inventor.

Decision: Court reaffirmed:

Inventorship is a legal right, and only humans can hold rights.

AI may assist inventors, but cannot be named.

Reasoning: Legal framework requires responsibility and accountability—AI cannot fulfill these.

Case 6: Australia – Thaler v Commissioner of Patents (2021)

Facts: Similar DABUS case.

Decision: Federal Court allowed the inventor to be AI in name but patent rights were granted to human owner.

Contrast with EPC: Shows some jurisdictions consider AI-generated inventions differently, but EPC remains restrictive.

3. Analysis Under EPC

Inventor Requirement:

EPC Articles 60 & 81: Inventor must be a human.

AI cannot be named or hold rights.

AI as a Tool:

AI may assist human inventors in performing inventive acts.

If a human directs or contributes to inventive concept, they can be inventor (T 0324/12).

Patent Ownership:

Only humans or legal entities can own patents (Art. 60 EPC).

AI cannot receive rights or assign rights.

Practical Implication:

Applications involving AI should designate humans as inventors.

AI involvement can be disclosed in the description but cannot appear as inventor.

4. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Jurisdiction	Issue	Decision	Key Point
DABUS/EPO T 0019/22	EPO	AI as inventor	Refused	Inventor must be human under EPC
DABUS/UK	UK	AI as inventor	Refused	Legal person required; AI cannot hold rights
T 0324/12	EPO	Computer-assisted invention	Allowed	Human-directed invention valid; AI as tool OK
DABUS/USPTO	USA	AI as inventor	Refused	Only humans can be inventors
Thaler v Commissioner	Australia	AI inventor	Allowed in name, but rights to human	Shows divergent approach; not EPC compliant