Artificial Inventor? - Patentability of inventions generated by artificial intelligence under European Patent Law.
(2026) JURM02 20261Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- We are entering an era that some describe as the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
triggered by the development of artificial intelligence. Considering the impact
that developments in artificial intelligence have had, and will continue to have
on society, discussions have arisen on the implications for the patent system.
The DABUS case highlights that the inventorship status under European patent
law can only be assigned to natural persons. As a result, a natural person must
be designated as the inventor for an invention to be eligible for patent protec-
tion. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used within pharmaceutical drug de-
velopment, and thus, queries arise as to whether the current legal framework is
sufficient to handle... (More) - We are entering an era that some describe as the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
triggered by the development of artificial intelligence. Considering the impact
that developments in artificial intelligence have had, and will continue to have
on society, discussions have arisen on the implications for the patent system.
The DABUS case highlights that the inventorship status under European patent
law can only be assigned to natural persons. As a result, a natural person must
be designated as the inventor for an invention to be eligible for patent protec-
tion. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used within pharmaceutical drug de-
velopment, and thus, queries arise as to whether the current legal framework is
sufficient to handle inventions generated by artificial intelligence.
This thesis aims to assess whether inventions generated by AI are patentable
under European patent law. As the development of artificial intelligence is chal-
lenging the traditional concepts of inventorship, this thesis uses a legal dog-
matic method to examine the discussions made on the topic by the European
Patent Office and national patent offices in Germany and the United Kingdom.
To analyse future risks with the current legal framework, and discuss possible
solutions, the objectives of patent law are analysed. These objectives are more-
over applied in the context of AI generated inventions and discussed in the light
of patent protection within drug development.
This thesis concludes that neither the European Patent Office nor any of the
member states of the European Patent Convention allow for artificial intelli-
gence systems to obtain inventorship status. However, one of the objectives of
patent law is to provide incentives to stimulate future innovation. If artificial in-
telligence systems are completely excluded from the legislation on inventor-
ship, uncertainty arises as to whether the patents for inventions generated by AI
are valid. In turn, incentives to invest in innovative research risk weakening,
having consequences for research sectors such as drug development. Therefore,
this thesis concludes that new legislative measures are needed to protect inven-
tions if a natural person cannot be designated as the inventor. The solution of
extended guidelines to the European Patent Convention is presented, as well as
the solution of a new legislative framework that operates alongside the already
existing European Patent Convention. This would reflect the invention in a
more accurate way, while still attributing the rights following the inventorship
status to humans. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9227135
- author
- Henriksson, Hedda LU
- supervisor
-
- Ana Nordberg LU
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Civilrätt (en. private law), EU-rätt (en. EU law), Immaterialrätt (en. intellectual property law)
- language
- English
- id
- 9227135
- date added to LUP
- 2026-06-12 13:22:53
- date last changed
- 2026-06-12 13:22:53
@misc{9227135,
abstract = {{We are entering an era that some describe as the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
triggered by the development of artificial intelligence. Considering the impact
that developments in artificial intelligence have had, and will continue to have
on society, discussions have arisen on the implications for the patent system.
The DABUS case highlights that the inventorship status under European patent
law can only be assigned to natural persons. As a result, a natural person must
be designated as the inventor for an invention to be eligible for patent protec-
tion. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used within pharmaceutical drug de-
velopment, and thus, queries arise as to whether the current legal framework is
sufficient to handle inventions generated by artificial intelligence.
This thesis aims to assess whether inventions generated by AI are patentable
under European patent law. As the development of artificial intelligence is chal-
lenging the traditional concepts of inventorship, this thesis uses a legal dog-
matic method to examine the discussions made on the topic by the European
Patent Office and national patent offices in Germany and the United Kingdom.
To analyse future risks with the current legal framework, and discuss possible
solutions, the objectives of patent law are analysed. These objectives are more-
over applied in the context of AI generated inventions and discussed in the light
of patent protection within drug development.
This thesis concludes that neither the European Patent Office nor any of the
member states of the European Patent Convention allow for artificial intelli-
gence systems to obtain inventorship status. However, one of the objectives of
patent law is to provide incentives to stimulate future innovation. If artificial in-
telligence systems are completely excluded from the legislation on inventor-
ship, uncertainty arises as to whether the patents for inventions generated by AI
are valid. In turn, incentives to invest in innovative research risk weakening,
having consequences for research sectors such as drug development. Therefore,
this thesis concludes that new legislative measures are needed to protect inven-
tions if a natural person cannot be designated as the inventor. The solution of
extended guidelines to the European Patent Convention is presented, as well as
the solution of a new legislative framework that operates alongside the already
existing European Patent Convention. This would reflect the invention in a
more accurate way, while still attributing the rights following the inventorship
status to humans.}},
author = {{Henriksson, Hedda}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Artificial Inventor? - Patentability of inventions generated by artificial intelligence under European Patent Law.}},
year = {{2026}},
}