Patent Regulation Of AI-Enabled Nanotechnology Inventions In Finland.

14 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

📌 1. Patent Eligibility for AI‑Enabled Nanotechnology in Finland

Under the Finnish Patent Act (No. 550/1967, as amended) any invention is patentable if it:

Is new,

Differs essentially from prior art, and

Has industrial applicability.
However, certain categories — e.g., scientific theories, mathematical methods, and purely abstract software — are not inventions per se.

In practice, for AI‑enabled nanotechnology, two conditions must be met:

The AI features should contribute a technical solution to a technical problem, not merely an abstract algorithm.

The nanotechnology application must show a concrete technical effect (e.g., a specific method to manipulate nanoscale materials).

Thus, from a Finnish/EPO standpoint:

✔ AI‑driven nano‑fabrication platforms can be patentable if they include technical means (e.g., a machine) and solve a technical problem.
✘ Mathematical formulas or data models with no real‑world technical output are not patentable.

📌 2. Inventorship: Can AI Be an Inventor?

Under Finnish law there is no specific statutory wording that allows a machine to be an inventor. The Finnish Patent & Registration Office (PRH) historically follows EPO practice — meaning inventorship must be a natural person.

💡 Key Principle

An AI system cannot be recorded as an inventor on a Finnish patent unless Finnish law is changed.

All Finnish AI‑nanotech patents today must list at least one human inventor.

This principle shapes several landmark decisions below.

📌 3. Case Law Influencing Finland via EPO Practice

Case 1 — EPO DABUS Decisions (EP 18 275 163 & EP 18 275 174)

This is the most discussed international case on AI inventorship.

Background:

An AI system called DABUS was listed as the inventor on two European patent applications.

These applications involved inventions reportedly autonomously generated by AI.

EPO Outcome:

EPO refused both applications because the European Patent Convention (EPC) requires a human inventor.

The EPO stated that an inventor must be a natural person, not a machine.

Therefore, even if AI plays a significant role, someone human must be inventor.

Relevance to Finland:

Finland validates European patents.

This rejection shows how AI‑generated inventions (including potentially AI‑enabled nanotechnology) must be attributed to humans to get a valid European/Finnish patent.

Finnish practitioners now assume similar practice unless Finnish law is amended.

Case 2 — EPO Boards of Appeal on Disclosure for AI Inventions (T 0161/18)

Although not Finland‑specific, this EPO Board of Appeal case is directly relevant to AI‑nanotech filing practices.

Facts:

A medical AI invention attempted to disclose an AI model used for diagnostics.

Outcome:

The EPO held the application lacked “sufficient disclosure” because it didn’t describe training data or how the AI model achieves the claimed technical effect.

AI inventions must be detailed enough that a person skilled in the art can put them into practice without undue burden.

Relevance:
For AI‑nanotechnology concepts, the same rule applies:
✔ Patent applications must fully disclose how the AI is trained and applied.
✔ Nanotech effects must be repeatable and technical.

Case 3 — AI Disclosure in EPO (Decisions on T 1539/20, T 0606/21, etc.)

Subsequent EPO Boards have reinforced the sufficiency requirement:

Holdings include:

Simply describing an AI algorithm’s high‑level capabilities is insufficient.

Input data, training process, and how that process causes a technical effect must be disclosed.

Relevance:
For nanotechnology inventions that rely on AI (e.g., machine learning optimized nano‑assembly), failing to disclose critical AI details can lead to rejection.

Case 4 — EPO Technical Character Requirement (EPC Art. 52 Cases)

Although not a single labeled case number, the key principle from the European Patent Convention is that:

🔹 A claimed invention must have a technical character.
🔹 If “AI nanotech” is framed as an abstract model, the EPO will reject it as an unpatentable abstract method.

Example Outcome:

An AI method applied to nanoscale imaging will be patentable if described with technical details and results (e.g., hardware integration).

Simply claiming AI will not suffice.

Case 5 — Inventorship Interpretation in Finland (No Direct Case but Confirmed by Practice)

From Finnish authorities and practitioners:

No Finnish court has yet decided an AI inventorship case.

But Finnish patent examiners apply the same human‑inventor requirement because they follow EPO practice, and national law presumes inventor is a natural person.

This absence of Finnish case law itself is significant — it shows current Finnish law treats AI as a tool, not an inventor, aligning with EPO decisions.

🧠 Synthesis — What This Means for “AI‑Enabled Nanotechnology” Patents in Finland

✅ Patentability is Possible if:

There is a technical solution to a technical problem, not an abstract method.

The role of AI is clearly documented with data, algorithms, and effects.

A natural person is designated as inventor, even if AI contributed mechanically.

❌ Patentability is Denied or Challenged if:

AI is named as the inventor.

Insufficient disclosure of how AI contributes.

Claims are primarily abstract or merely software‑like without tech effect.

📌 Key Takeaways for Practitioners

Issue	Current Finnish/EPO Position
Inventor Listing	Only natural persons can be inventors.
Patentability	AI‑assisted nanotech can be patented if claims show technical effect and disclosure is complete.
Disclosure Requirements	Must include training data, technical steps, and repeatability.
EPO Influence	Finnish practice closely follows the EPO and EPC guidelines.

🧾 Final Note on Future Regulation

Finland is aligning its laws with EU AI regulation (including the new AI Act), but specific patent law changes addressing AI inventorship are not yet enacted. That means court practice and patent examiner standards will continue to be shaped by EPO decisions and international case law for now.