DABUS Case – AI Cannot Be an Inventor.
DABUS Case
(2024 (Gyo-Ko) No. 10006: Appeal Case Seeking Rescission of Disposition of Dismissal of Application)
[Issue]
Whether an "inventor" is limited to a natural person (Issue (1)).
[Summary of the Judgment]
An AI cannot be an inventor. Patents cannot be granted for AI-generated inventions.
[Overview of the Case]
1. The plaintiff filed a PCT application claiming Paris Convention priority based on a European patent application.
2. Upon entering the national phase in Japan, the plaintiff stated "DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously generated this invention" in the inventor column of the domestic documents.
3. The Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) issued an order for amendment to provide the name of a natural person in the inventor column. Since the plaintiff did not comply, the application was dismissed.
4. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against this decision, which the JPO dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for rescission in the Tokyo District Court.
5. After the Tokyo District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Intellectual Property High Court (IP High Court).
6. The IP High Court upheld the first-instance decision, ruling that "an inventor under the Patent Act is limited to a natural person." Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the JPO’s dismissal of the application was lawful.
[Reasoning of the Judgment]
In this judgment, "natural person" and "legal capacity" are the key terms. We plan to delve deeper into this case on our BLOG page, focusing primarily on the "boundaries of a natural person" and the "entities entitled to legal capacity."
(Supplementary Note)
Courts in various other jurisdictions have also ruled that "AI does not qualify as an inventor."
(2024 (Gyo-Ko) No. 10006: Appeal Case Seeking Rescission of Disposition of Dismissal of Application)
[Issue]
Whether an "inventor" is limited to a natural person (Issue (1)).
[Summary of the Judgment]
An AI cannot be an inventor. Patents cannot be granted for AI-generated inventions.
[Overview of the Case]
1. The plaintiff filed a PCT application claiming Paris Convention priority based on a European patent application.
2. Upon entering the national phase in Japan, the plaintiff stated "DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously generated this invention" in the inventor column of the domestic documents.
3. The Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) issued an order for amendment to provide the name of a natural person in the inventor column. Since the plaintiff did not comply, the application was dismissed.
4. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against this decision, which the JPO dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for rescission in the Tokyo District Court.
5. After the Tokyo District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Intellectual Property High Court (IP High Court).
6. The IP High Court upheld the first-instance decision, ruling that "an inventor under the Patent Act is limited to a natural person." Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the JPO’s dismissal of the application was lawful.
[Reasoning of the Judgment]
- The main reasons provided by the IP High Court are as follows:
- 1) An "inventor" must be an entity capable of holding the right to obtain a patent—that is, an entity with legal capacity (Main clause of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Act).
- 2) The "right to obtain a patent" is a right that arises only when a natural person is the inventor (Article 35, Paragraph 3 of the Act).
- Furthermore, the IP High Court ruled as follows regarding the plaintiff's arguments:
- a) The Patent Act does not provide procedures for granting a patent for an invention where the inventor is an entity lacking legal capacity. Therefore, even if the concept of "invention" itself is not limited to those made by natural persons, there is no room to grant patent rights for an "invention" whose inventor lacks legal capacity.
- b) Since the current Patent Act recognizes the right to obtain a patent only for inventions made by natural persons, the plaintiff's claim that AI-generated inventions are patentable is groundless, regardless of whether such creations fall within the definition of an "invention" under the Act.
In this judgment, "natural person" and "legal capacity" are the key terms. We plan to delve deeper into this case on our BLOG page, focusing primarily on the "boundaries of a natural person" and the "entities entitled to legal capacity."
(Supplementary Note)
Courts in various other jurisdictions have also ruled that "AI does not qualify as an inventor."