Legal Recognition Of Algorithmic Inventorship Under Eu Charter Of Fundamental Rights
1. Introduction: Algorithmic Inventorship in EU Law
Algorithmic inventorship refers to situations where an AI system or autonomous algorithm is the “creator” of an invention, rather than a human. Key issues in EU law include:
Who qualifies as an inventor under patent law?
Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU CFR) provide a basis for recognizing AI as inventors?
Implications for moral rights and intellectual property.
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC):
Only natural persons can be recognized as inventors.
AI cannot hold patents, but inventions generated autonomously by AI can be patented if a human applicant is named as the inventor.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 17 and 16) guarantees:
Right to property (including IP rights).
Freedom to conduct business.
This raises questions: Can algorithmic inventors indirectly enjoy recognition or protection, and how do courts reconcile this with human inventorship requirements?
2. Key Case Laws and Legal Developments
Case 1: EPO DABUS Decision (G 1/21) – 2021
Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler applied for patents listing DABUS, an AI system, as the inventor.
Decision:
EPO rejected the applications because inventors must be natural persons under the EPC.
The Board emphasized that granting inventorship to AI would conflict with established legal frameworks.
Implication: EU patent law does not recognize algorithmic inventors, despite AI creating novel inventions.
Case 2: UK High Court – Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents (2021)
Facts: UK patent office rejected Thaler’s DABUS applications citing lack of human inventorship.
Decision:
Court confirmed UK law aligns with EPC: AI cannot be an inventor.
Court acknowledged that AI can generate patentable inventions, but ownership must be attributed to a human or legal entity.
Implication: Legal recognition under EU law remains limited; moral rights under the EU Charter cannot extend to AI.
Case 3: German Federal Patent Court – DABUS Appeal (2022)
Facts: Appeal sought recognition of DABUS as inventor in Germany.
Decision:
Court upheld rejection based on EPC Article 81 and national patent law.
Court highlighted that AI lacks legal personality, a prerequisite for recognition under human rights frameworks.
Implication: Fundamental rights, like property rights, cannot be directly claimed by an AI system.
Case 4: European Parliament Study – 2020/2207(INI)
Facts: EP Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) examined AI inventorship.
Findings:
EU CFR guarantees IP rights for natural and legal persons only.
Recommendation: AI-generated inventions should list the human creator as inventor; AI may be credited in the description.
Implication: EU law aims to balance innovation incentives with legal clarity, preventing AI from holding rights directly.
Case 5: CNIPA & USPTO Comparative Analysis – 2021
Facts: Various jurisdictions considered AI inventorship.
EU/EPO: Only humans as inventors.
US: USPTO rejected AI as inventor.
China: AI cannot be inventor; human applicant must be named.
Implication: EU approach aligns internationally; EU Charter rights do not override EPC inventorship requirements.
Case 6: EPO T 1227/19 – “AI-Assisted Invention by Humans”
Facts: Human-in-the-loop AI assisted in designing mechanical components.
Decision:
The human designer was listed as inventor.
AI credited in description but not recognized as a legal inventor.
Implication: Inventorship is tied to legal accountability and creativity attributable to a natural person, preserving examiner neutrality and compliance with EU CFR.
Case 7: European Court of Justice Opinion (Forthcoming Guidance)
Background: Discussions on AI and intellectual property, including recognition under EU CFR.
Key Points:
AI may have “moral credit” or acknowledgment, but cannot hold legal property rights.
The EU CFR right to property applies only to entities capable of holding rights (humans or corporations).
Implication: Any attempt to list AI as inventor conflicts with fundamental rights interpretation in EU law.
3. Principles Derived from Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case References |
|---|---|---|
| Inventorship Restriction | Only natural persons recognized as inventors under EPC/EU law | DABUS (EPO, UK, DE) |
| AI Contribution Recognition | AI can be credited in description or acknowledged as assistant | T 1227/19, EP Study 2020 |
| Ownership Assignment | Human or legal entity must hold rights | Thaler UK, German Appeal |
| EU CFR Limits | Fundamental rights (property, business freedom) apply only to humans/legal persons | EP Study 2020, ECJ Guidance |
| Innovation Incentives | Recognition mechanisms should encourage AI-generated inventions without granting legal personhood | Comparative CNIPA/USPTO |
4. Implications for AI-Generated Inventions
Legal Recognition: AI cannot be an inventor; EU law maintains human-centric patent frameworks.
Moral Credit: AI contributions can be acknowledged in patent description, publication, or research attribution.
Ownership & Rights: Humans or legal entities hold patent rights; AI cannot enforce IP rights under EU CFR.
Policy Trend: EU Parliament and EPO consider new incentive frameworks (e.g., human patent ownership for AI-generated inventions) while preserving legal certainty.
Practical Approach: For AI-generated inventions in the EU:
List human(s) as inventors
Describe AI contributions clearly
Ensure compliance with EPC/EU CFR frameworks
Conclusion:
Under EU law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, algorithmic inventors cannot be legally recognized. Case law across EPO, UK, Germany, and EU policy studies confirms that AI contributions can be acknowledged but not attributed inventorship. Human inventors remain the legal and rights-holding entities, maintaining clarity in property rights, accountability, and compliance with fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
comments