AI an inventor? No, says the Court!
Our experts analyse the Federal Administrative Court decision of 26 June 2025 (B-2532/2024) denying inventor rights to the AI, the first decision on this topic in Switzerland.
What are we talking about?
At the heart of the ruling is the question of whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system – specifically the DABUS system – can legally be considered the inventor of a patent. The US computer scientist Stephen L. Thaler had filed a patent with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) for a new type of food container. However, he did not claim himself as the inventor, but rather the AI called “DABUS.” He argued that the AI had created the invention entirely on its own, without human intervention.
Key points of the decision
The IPI rejected the application. Reason: According to the Swiss Patent Act, only natural persons can be recognized as inventors. Artificial intelligence is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be registered as an inventor. Thaler appealed against this decision.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court
The Federal Administrative Court largely confirmed the view of the lower instance. It decided that an AI system like DABUS cannot be considered an inventor. The legal definition of an inventor presupposes a human act of creation. According to the law, a patent application without any designation of the inventor is also not possible.
However, the court agreed with Thaler on one point: since he had trained the AI, supplied it with data and finally recognized the patentable invention and submitted it to the authority, his contribution was sufficient to classify him as a legal inventor himself. The court therefore ordered that the IPI must continue to process the patent application – with Thaler as the inventor.
Worldwide trend
This decision joins numerous comparable judgments worldwide. The European Patent Office, the German Patent and Trademark Office, as well as authorities in the UK, Australia, Taiwan and the USA have also ruled in similar cases: artificial intelligence cannot (yet) be considered an inventor.
What impact in practice?
This verdict concerns the future of technology and innovation. The role of AI in creative and technical processes is becoming increasingly important. Artificial intelligence can support many processes and inventions, but legally people remain at the center of patent law. The inventor in the sense of the law continues to be the human being – not the machine. An AI like DABUS cannot be named as the official inventor in the patent. So, anyone using AI in research and development activities needs to keep in mind that ultimately an individual must always act as the inventor for the patent. Anyone who uses and trains an AI, recognizes and uses its results can be considered an inventor – as long as human involvement can be proven.
Impact on other intellectual property rights
Even though the ruling only concerns patent law, the basic rule of “natural person” as a rights holder also applies to other property rights such as trademarks and copyright: AI systems are not independent legal entities and therefore cannot have rights similar to authors or trademark owners. Legal entities remain individuals or companies.
