Summary
The European Patent Office refused two patent applications (EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174) in which a machine — DABUS, described as “a type of connectionist artificial intelligence” — was designated as the inventor. The EPO ruled that the European Patent Convention requires inventors to be human beings, not machines.
Key Points
- Two applications refused: EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174
- DABUS described by applicant as “a type of connectionist artificial intelligence”
- Applicant’s theory: they acquired rights from DABUS as its “successor in title”
- EPO’s ruling: the EPC requires inventors to be human beings
- Non-public oral proceedings held November 25, 2019; decisions issued December 2019
- Reasoned written decision expected January 2020
- This is an early anchor case in the broader AI legal personhood debate
Newsletter Angles
- The “successor in title” argument is legally creative: the applicant tried to claim human ownership of AI-generated inventions while still naming the AI as inventor. The EPO rejected both the legal theory and the designation.
- The DABUS cases across multiple jurisdictions (EPO, USPTO, UK courts, South Africa, Australia) created a global legal record on AI inventorship — this EPO ruling is one piece of a fragmented international picture.
- The underlying question: if an AI system genuinely generates a novel invention without human creative contribution, who gets the patent? Current law says no one (or the human who built the AI). That gap has commercial consequences.
Entities Mentioned
- DABUS — AI system named as inventor in the applications
- European Patent Office — ruling body
- Stephen Thaler — AI researcher who filed the DABUS applications (not named in source but context)
Concepts Mentioned
- AI Legal Personhood — core subject; whether AI can be a legal inventor
- Platform Antitrust — unrelated; do not link
Quotes
“The EPO has refused two European patent applications in which a machine was designated as inventor.”
Applications refused “on the grounds that they do not meet the requirement of the EPC that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine.”
Notes
Source is the EPO’s own press release — authoritative on the ruling itself, limited on broader context. Very short source; useful as a primary document but requires supplementation with coverage of parallel DABUS proceedings in other jurisdictions (USPTO, UK Court of Appeal, South Africa, Australia).