Artificial intelligence has become an integral part of research and development. But who is an inventor?, if an AI participates in the invention? The Federal Court of Justice decided this question in its decision of 11. June 2024 (X ZB 5/22) answered in the “DABUS” case.

The case

The applicant Stephen Thaler had filed a patent application with the DPMA and named the AI ​​system “DABUS” as the inventor. The DPMA rejected the application. Thaler was partially successful with an auxiliary application before the Federal Patent Court; the BGH confirmed this decision.

The core statements

• An inventor is always a human being: As an inventor within the meaning of § 37 Abs. 1 Under the Patent Act, only a natural person can be named - even if an AI system was significantly involved.
• Human contribution is enough: A human contribution is enough, which significantly influenced the overall success. Since there are currently no AI systems without human influence, A person is regularly considered as an inventor.
• Reference to the AI ​​is permitted: Thaler was allowed to name and add himself as an inventor, that he caused the AI ​​to generate the invention.

The EPO (J 8/20, J 9/20) and the courts in Great Britain and the USA have decided likewise.

What does that mean for you??

Inventions achieved with AI are generally patentable - as always, novelty is crucial, inventive step and technicality. Keep developing, which people used the AI, set the task and select and evaluate the results. This is important for the naming of the inventor and for the remuneration according to the Employee Invention Act. More on this: Can an invention developed with AI be patented??

Those: BGH, Decision v. 11.06.2024, X ZB 5/22 – DABUS. General overview, no legal advice in individual cases. Stand: November 2026.