{"id":1990,"date":"2025-07-06T15:36:17","date_gmt":"2025-07-06T15:36:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexify.io\/?p=1990"},"modified":"2025-07-06T15:36:20","modified_gmt":"2025-07-06T15:36:20","slug":"ai-cannot-be-an-inventor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexify.io\/de\/ai-cannot-be-an-inventor\/","title":{"rendered":"AI CANNOT BE AN INVENTOR"},"content":{"rendered":"


<\/strong>Introduction   <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In a landmark ruling (case B-2532\/2024), the Swiss Federal Administrative Court has definitively held that artificial intelligence (\u201cAI<\/strong>\u201d) systems cannot be recognized as inventors under the Swiss legal framework. The Court\u2019s decision marks a significant precedent in the global discourse on intellectual property (\u201cIP\u201d) and the legal personality\u2014or lack thereof\u2014of autonomous AI systems. The case concerned the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property\u2019s (\u201cIPI<\/strong>\u201d) rejection of a patent application naming an AI system, DABUS, as the sole inventor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background: DABUS and the Global Debate<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

DABUS (\u201cDevice for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience\u201d), developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, has been at the center of multiple international legal proceedings. The core legal question has been consistent: can an AI system be legally recognized as an inventor for the purposes of patent law?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Authorities in the UK, EU, US, and now Switzerland have overwhelmingly answered in the negative. In the Swiss case, the patent application submitted to the IPI explicitly designated DABUS as the inventor. The IPI rejected the application for failure to comply with Art. 59(2) of the Swiss Patent Act, which requires the indication of a human inventor. The applicant appealed the decision, alleging that Swiss law does not explicitly exclude non-human inventors and that the legal framework should be interpreted in a technologically neutral manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court’s Reasoning<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the IPI\u2019s position. The decision emphasized the following key legal and conceptual points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Natural Person Requirement<\/strong>:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The term \u201cinventor\u201d under the Swiss Patent Act, while not explicitly defined, must be interpreted in light of its ordinary meaning and international standards. Both doctrinal interpretations and the European Patent Convention (\u201cEPC<\/strong>\u201d), to which Switzerland is a party, consistently understand the inventor as a natural person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n