Background and facts
The case concerned a patent application for a novel food container (patent application CH000408/2021), the design and technical solution of which, according to the applicant, had been autonomously generated by the AI system DABUS. DABUS was named as the sole “inventor” in the PCT application. When the national procedure was opened at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE), the latter required a natural person to be named as the inventor, as only natural persons could be entered in the patent register. The application was rejected. The applicant then lodged an appeal with the aim of having DABUS registered as the inventor anyway, being able to obtain the patent without naming an inventor, or alternatively being able to name himself as the inventor.
Decision of the Federal Administrative Court
In its ruling of June 26, 2025, in case B-2532/2024, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the rejection of the “AI inventor.” The court held that the term “inventor” in Swiss patent law only applies to natural persons. A system such as DABUS, regardless of its degree of autonomy, cannot be registered in this legal institution. In doing so, the court followed previous national and international practice.
At the same time, the Federal Administrative Court took a pragmatic approach: the appeal was upheld on one point, namely in the sub-auxiliary request. Anyone who has participated in the AI process (e.g., through training, data preparation, or result selection), recognizes the invention generated by the AI, and submits the application for protection can be considered the inventor. On this basis, the FAC ordered that the patent examination be continued with the applicant himself as the inventor.
Legal basis
Although Swiss patent law (specifically the Patent Act (PatG) and the associated ordinance) does not explicitly define the term “inventor,” the Federal Administrative Court believes that the wording and treaty systems such as the European Patent Convention (EPC) indicate that “inventor” refers to a natural person. If the historical legislation had intended otherwise, it would have had to expressly provide for non-human inventors—but no such reservation exists.
The court further emphasized that, unlike humans, AI systems do not possess the intellectual creativity, consciousness, or personality rights typically required for invention. This means that they lack the legal capacity required to be recognized as inventors.
Analysis and significance of the ruling
The ruling of the Federal Administrative Court is of considerable significance both from a legal and practical point of view and sends several key signals to practitioners. First and foremost, it creates legal certainty in the field of intellectual property by clearly stating that artificial intelligence cannot be recognized as an inventor. This clarification removes existing uncertainties for companies and individuals who use AI systems in their innovation processes. In the future, regardless of the technical role of AI, a natural person must be named as the inventor from the outset.
Particular emphasis is placed on the central role of humans in AI-supported inventions. The focus is not on the technical ability of a system to produce inventions, but on the creative and legally relevant contribution that must be made by a natural person. This includes, for example, training the AI, selecting suitable data sets, or recognizing and classifying the results generated by the AI as a protectable invention.
Furthermore, the ruling strengthens the principle of legal capacity and the protection of personal intellectual achievement. Invention protection in patent law is inextricably linked to the idea of individual, creative achievement – a concept that cannot be transferred to machines or AI systems. This view is in line with prevailing legal opinion and reflects the current state of case law in other countries and at major international patent offices.
The decision is therefore also in line with international developments, in particular with comparable rulings in Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and at international authorities such as the European Patent Office. There is a clear trend worldwide: AI may assist in the generation of ideas, but legal protection of inventions remains the preserve of humans.
This has concrete practical consequences for companies, start-ups, research institutions, and patent attorneys. First, patent strategies must be adapted accordingly. Anyone using AI systems to develop novel technical solutions must ensure at an early stage that a natural person is named as the inventor. This person should make a clearly documented contribution to the invention process—for example, by selecting data, controlling the AI, or evaluating the generated results.
At the same time, it is necessary to structure innovation processes and internal procedures in such a way that the human contribution remains traceable. Companies should, for example, systematically document who trained the AI, who analyzed the output, and who ultimately identified the protectable idea and submitted it for registration. Careful documentation can facilitate subsequent inquiries by authorities or third parties and minimize legal risks.
Contractual provisions should also be designed accordingly. License, cooperation, or transfer agreements relating to AI-generated results should expressly stipulate who is considered the inventor, who is entitled to the rights, and how any contributors are involved. This requires new standard clauses that reflect both the legal and technical complexity of AI-supported developments.
Finally, it is advisable to closely monitor further legislative and judicial developments. Although the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court is currently authoritative, it is possible that the case will be referred to the Federal Supreme Court. Legislative responses could also follow if technological development continues to accelerate or existing legal structures are deemed insufficient. Companies and legal advisors are therefore well advised to closely monitor these developments and adapt their IP strategies accordingly.
Sources
- Media release from the Federal Administrative Court on judgment B-2532/2024: “Artificial intelligence is not an inventor”
- ruling B‑2532/2024
Note: revised with AI