A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the United States

»A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law
in Germany and the United States«: This thesis asks a provocative question: Can AI be
an inventor? The answer is: Yes. By applying the »2/7 Questions Process« from German
and US patent law, it compares inventorship rules and evaluates the roles of humans
and AI. Legal theories, historical precedents, and philosophical reflections together
show that recognizing AI inventorship is both legally plausible and conceptually
justified.

»A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law
in Germany and the United States«: This thesis asks a provocative question: Can AI be
an inventor? The answer is: Yes. By applying the »2/7 Questions Process« from German
and US patent law, it compares inventorship rules and evaluates the roles of humans
and AI. Legal theories, historical precedents, and philosophical reflections together
show that recognizing AI inventorship is both legally plausible and conceptually
justified.

1. Introduction
Background – Previous Literature – Gaps in Existing Literature and Contribution of
This Study – Overview of the Structure – Scope of the Research

2. Understanding AI in the Patent Field
Three Key Components Defining AI and the Significance of Understanding Software –
Understanding AI Software – Today’s Mass Production of AI Inventions – Comparison
between AI Software and Human Brain

3. Comparative Studies of the Requirements for Inventorship Under Patent Law in
Germany and the US
Introduction – Three Preliminary Remarks – The Invention Process – The Application
Process – The Official Position of the Patent Office and Courts in both Germany and
the US on AI Inventorship – Final Remarks and Critical Reflection

4. The 2/7 Questions and Possible AI-related Candidates for Inventors when AI is
Excluded
Introduction – The 2/7 Questions: The Requirements for Inventorship – Possibility of
Each Candidate’s Inventorship – Possibility of Joint Inventorship of all Possible
Candidates

5. Empty Column to »Inventor’s Name«
Introduction – No Room for Unnamed Inventors in Existing Legal Frameworks – Three
Models of Inventor Attribution – Why the Inventor Field Must Not Be Empty: Legal,
Procedural, and Ethical Implications

6. Affirmation of AI Inventorship
Opposing AI as Inventor: Arguments and Counterarguments – The Four-Perspective
Analysis in Support of AI Inventorship

7. E-Person as Inventor
The Current Legal Situation: The ›Inventor as a Formal Expression‹ and the ›Inventor
as a Substantive Truth‹ – Establishment of ›E-Persons‹ – E-Persons in Patent Law:
Conceptualizing the Legal Subject of the Inventive Process

• By (author) Myung-Ji Kang