Who can be an inventor? Not (yet) Artificial Intelligence

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) recently ruled on a case of great relevance to patent law: can Artificial Intelligence (AI) be named as an inventor?

The case concerned DABUS[1], an Artificial Intelligence system developed by the appellant, who had filed a patent application for a food container, declaring that the invention had been generated autonomously by DABUS. As in almost all jurisdictions where the application was filed, including the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) and the EPO (European Patent Office), the Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) also rejected the application, arguing that only physical persons can be recognised as inventors under Swiss law. The IPI's decision aligns with an internationally accepted interpretation; as stated by the US Supreme Court, patent protection can encompass "anything under the sun that is made by man". [2]

The Federal Administrative Court confirmed this interpretation: the Federal Patent Act requires the inventor to be identified as a "person" with a first name, surname and domicile, characteristics that AI does not possess. This conclusion is supported by a literal, historical, systematic and teleological interpretation of the law.

At the same time, it was clarified that anyone who makes a significant inventive contribution to the AI data processing process and identifies a patentable invention from the result produced by the system and applies for protection can be considered the inventor. [3]

The patent will therefore have to be examined further, but with the applicant - and not DABUS - as the inventor.

The case has been analysed in several jurisdictions, all of which have reached the same conclusion as the FAC. Only the South African Patent Office has recognised the DABUS AI system as the inventor.

[1] Ruling B-2532/2024 of 26 June 2025 of the Federal Administrative Court.

[2] S. REP. No. 82-1979 (1952); H.R. REP. No. 82- 1923 (1952).

[3] Federal Administrative Court, Press release relating to judgment B-2532/2024 of 26 June 2025.