Introduction: Overview and Timeline

On January 30, 2025, the Intellectual Property High Court (IP High Court) delivered a final judgment regarding whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system can be recognized as an inventor. The Court upheld the lower court’s decision against the plaintiff.

The case originated from a PCT application in which the applicant designated “DABUS” (an AI) as the inventor. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the application during the national phase entry. The applicant sought to revoke this dismissal.

The IP High Court fully affirmed the decision of the Tokyo District Court. It confirmed that under the current Patent Act, an inventor is restricted to a natural person.

The chronology of the case is as follows:

• September 17, 2019 (PCT Application): The appellant (applicant) filed a PCT application designating “DABUS” as the inventor.
• August 5, 2020 (National Phase Entry): During the national phase entry procedure for Japan, the appellant submitted documents with the entry “DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously generated the invention” in the “Name of Inventor” field.
• July 30, 2021 (Order to Amend): The JPO Commissioner ordered the appellant to amend the entry to a natural person’s name, stating that inventorship is limited to natural persons.
• October 13, 2021 (Dismissal): As the appellant did not file an amendment within the designated period, the JPO Commissioner dismissed the application pursuant to Article 184-5, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Act (hereinafter “the Dismissal”).
• January 17, 2022 (Request for Review): The appellant filed a Request for Review against the Dismissal under the Administrative Complaint Review Act.
• October 12, 2022 (Administrative Decision): The JPO Commissioner rendered a decision rejecting the Request for Review.
• March 27, 2023 (Filing of Lawsuit): The appellant filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court seeking revocation of the Dismissal.
• 2024 (Tokyo District Court Judgment): The Tokyo District Court dismissed the claim, ruling that an inventor under the Patent Act is limited to a natural person and that the Dismissal was legal.
• January 30, 2025 (IP High Court Judgment): The IP High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Tokyo District Court.

Issue 1: Is “Inventorship” Restricted to Natural Persons?

The primary issue was whether patent rights can be granted for inventions autonomously generated by AI (“AI inventions”) under the current law. The IP High Court fully supported the Tokyo District Court’s judgment on this point.

Legal Basis

The Court interpreted the Patent Act as presupposing that an “inventor” is a natural person.

• Article 29, Paragraph 1 grants the right to obtain a patent to “a person who has made an invention.”
• Article 35, Paragraph 3 (Employee Inventions) is based on the premise that inventions are made by employees (natural persons).

The Court concluded that the “right to obtain a patent” arises only when the inventor is a natural person. There are no statutory provisions to grant rights to entities lacking legal capacity, such as AI.

Delegation to Legislative Policy

The High Court placed greater emphasis on “legislative policy” than the District Court. The Court noted that granting patent rights for AI inventions requires a broad assessment of economic and industrial impact. The Court explicitly stated that this is a matter for legislative discussion and cannot be resolved through judicial interpretation of the current law.

Issue 2: Is the “Inventor’s Name” a Mandatory Requirement?

The second issue concerned whether designating an AI as the inventor’s name in the national phase documents is permissible as a formal requirement.

“Name” as a Mandatory Requirement

The High Court determined that the “name of the inventor” is a mandatory requirement for application documents. Since the Act presupposes human inventors, it is a logical consequence that the required “name” must be that of a natural person. Therefore, naming an AI is not permitted.

Response to “Misappropriated Application” Concerns

The appellant argued that requiring a human name for AI inventions is impossible and would encourage false entries. The Court rejected this argument, stating it rests on the erroneous premise that AI inventions are patentable. Regarding concerns that this rule might lead to “misappropriated applications” (naming a person who is not the true inventor), the Court acknowledged this as a potential issue. However, the Court ruled that this is a gap in the law to be addressed by legislation, not a valid reason to waive the mandatory requirement to indicate an inventor’s name.

Conclusion

The IP High Court clarified that the question of granting rights to AI-generated inventions falls outside the scope of judicial interpretation. It requires legislative debate. The Court stated that simply interpreting the current law to include AI inventions does not necessarily contribute to “industrial development,” which is the ultimate purpose of the Patent Act.