2025.10.24
Legal Interpretation of AI-Generated Inventions
PATENT
Legal Interpretation of AI-Generated Inventions
1. Introduction
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly advanced, bringing about innovative changes in various fields of society, industry, and academia. Along with such developments, ethical issues and the need for the establishment of legal systems are likely to be raised as challenges. One case closely related to such challenges is the so-called “AI-generated Invention DABUS Case.” Below, we provide a brief overview of this case.
2. AI DABUS Case
(1) Case Overview
・The Applicant, Stephen Thaler (hereinafter, “X”), filed an international patent application in 2019, asserting that the AI “DABUS” had autonomously generated an invention, and filed applications in some countries including Japan.
・Since X indicated “DABUS,” the name of an AI, as the inventor in the application form, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) ordered an amendment. X refused to comply with the order, and the application was consequently dismissed.
・X filed a lawsuit, seeking revocation of the dismissal.
(2) Tokyo District Court’s Decision
The Tokyo District Court dismissed the claim of X (decision made on May 16, 2024), reasoning as follows.
・Based on the wording of Article 33 of the Patent Act and Article 2 of the Intellectual Property Basic Act, inventions are to be interpreted as “the result of human creative activity.” Accordingly, inventors are presumed to be individuals, and AI is not an individual.
We add some information on this:
The Japanese Patent Act does not explicitly state that inventors must be individuals.
However, Article 2 of the Intellectual Property Basic Act provides as follows:
In other words, “inventions” are listed as examples of outputs from human creative activity. In view of this, it is recognized that inventors must be individuals.
Furthermore, under the main paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act, an inventor holds the right to obtain a patent, which is transferable (Article 33(1) of the Patent Act). Therefore, an inventor must possess “legal capacity.” Legal capacity is governed by the Civil Code, but at least, machines or animals do not possess such capacity.
X filed an appeal against the Decision to the Intellectual Property High Court (hereinafter, “IP High Court”). The IP High Court affirmed the Tokyo District Court’s Decision and dismissed the appeal (decision made on January 30, 2025).
3. Future Outlook
Regarding the protection of autonomous inventions by AI, some have expressed the following opinion: “If a human merely instructs AI to perform tasks, it does not amount to conceiving an invention. Thus, the human should not be regarded as the inventor. If the conception originates with AI, the invention should be recognized as an autonomous invention by the AI, and the AI should be considered as the inventor. Otherwise, autonomous creations by AI will not be disclosed but rather kept secret, which could hinder the promotion of valuable inventions by AI.”
Currently, the JPO website explicitly states the following regarding “indication of inventors”: “The indication of inventors is considered to be limited to individuals. It is not permissible to designate as an inventor any entity that is recognized not to be an individual, such as a machine, including an artificial intelligence (AI), in the field of inventors in the application form etc.”
However, in our opinion, the above argument supporting recognition of autonomous inventions of AI cannot be easily ignored. In response to the “AI DABUS Case,” various countries are now engaging in ethical debates and legal reforms regarding AI. We should continue to monitor how these developments evolve.
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly advanced, bringing about innovative changes in various fields of society, industry, and academia. Along with such developments, ethical issues and the need for the establishment of legal systems are likely to be raised as challenges. One case closely related to such challenges is the so-called “AI-generated Invention DABUS Case.” Below, we provide a brief overview of this case.
2. AI DABUS Case
(1) Case Overview
・The Applicant, Stephen Thaler (hereinafter, “X”), filed an international patent application in 2019, asserting that the AI “DABUS” had autonomously generated an invention, and filed applications in some countries including Japan.
・Since X indicated “DABUS,” the name of an AI, as the inventor in the application form, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) ordered an amendment. X refused to comply with the order, and the application was consequently dismissed.
・X filed a lawsuit, seeking revocation of the dismissal.
(2) Tokyo District Court’s Decision
The Tokyo District Court dismissed the claim of X (decision made on May 16, 2024), reasoning as follows.
・Based on the wording of Article 33 of the Patent Act and Article 2 of the Intellectual Property Basic Act, inventions are to be interpreted as “the result of human creative activity.” Accordingly, inventors are presumed to be individuals, and AI is not an individual.
We add some information on this:
The Japanese Patent Act does not explicitly state that inventors must be individuals.
However, Article 2 of the Intellectual Property Basic Act provides as follows:
The term “Intellectual property” as used in this Act shall mean inventions, devices, new plant varieties, designs, works of authorship, and other products generated by human creative activity…
In other words, “inventions” are listed as examples of outputs from human creative activity. In view of this, it is recognized that inventors must be individuals.
Furthermore, under the main paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act, an inventor holds the right to obtain a patent, which is transferable (Article 33(1) of the Patent Act). Therefore, an inventor must possess “legal capacity.” Legal capacity is governed by the Civil Code, but at least, machines or animals do not possess such capacity.
X filed an appeal against the Decision to the Intellectual Property High Court (hereinafter, “IP High Court”). The IP High Court affirmed the Tokyo District Court’s Decision and dismissed the appeal (decision made on January 30, 2025).
3. Future Outlook
Regarding the protection of autonomous inventions by AI, some have expressed the following opinion: “If a human merely instructs AI to perform tasks, it does not amount to conceiving an invention. Thus, the human should not be regarded as the inventor. If the conception originates with AI, the invention should be recognized as an autonomous invention by the AI, and the AI should be considered as the inventor. Otherwise, autonomous creations by AI will not be disclosed but rather kept secret, which could hinder the promotion of valuable inventions by AI.”
Currently, the JPO website explicitly states the following regarding “indication of inventors”: “The indication of inventors is considered to be limited to individuals. It is not permissible to designate as an inventor any entity that is recognized not to be an individual, such as a machine, including an artificial intelligence (AI), in the field of inventors in the application form etc.”
However, in our opinion, the above argument supporting recognition of autonomous inventions of AI cannot be easily ignored. In response to the “AI DABUS Case,” various countries are now engaging in ethical debates and legal reforms regarding AI. We should continue to monitor how these developments evolve.
End of Article
