Can AI Be an Inventor? The Debate Around AI-Generated Inventions 21 Oct 2025 The patent system has long served as an important framework for protecting inventions and encouraging innovation. As technology develops, the world of patents is also undergoing a transformation. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are not only driving new innovations but are also challenging the traditional boundaries of patent law. AI has rapidly evolved from a tool that helps human inventors to a system capable of generating novel, patent-worthy inventions without direct human intervention. This shift has raised a question: Can AI be recognized as an inventor? This article examines the current legal landscape, key court rulings, and policy discussions in major jurisdictions, exploring whether existing patent laws can accommodate AI-generated inventions. Key Legal Battles: How Different Jurisdictions Are Responding United States: Inventors Must Be Human The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and federal courts have taken a firm stance: only humans can be inventors. In the DABUS case (AI system as the sole inventor), the USPTO rejected Thaler’s application, arguing that the Patent Act defines an inventor as an "individual," which implies a natural person. The Federal court upheld this decision in 2022, stating that AI lacks legal personhood. However, the USPTO has acknowledged that AI can assist human inventors, and patents can still be granted if a human contributes significantly to the invention. USPTO has also sought public input on AI’s role in patent law, signaling potential future policy adjustments. Europe: Tools, Not Creators Europe has taken a similar stance. Both European Patent Office (EPO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) rejected the DABUS application, emphasizing that an inventor must have legal personality, which AI lacks. The EPO noted that recognizing AI as inventors would complicate legal questions around ownership, liability, and responsibility. While the EPO has stuck with its position, it acknowledges the increasing role of AI in innovation and is launching public consultations to assess whether future changes might be needed. Singapore: Cautiously Forward-Looking Singapore's patent framework maintains clear requirements for human inventorship. Under Section 24(2) of the Patents Act 1994, applicants must identify "a person" as the inventor, while Section 2(1) defines the inventor as "the actual deviser of the invention" - both provisions consistently interpreted by Singapore courts as referring exclusively to natural persons. This legal interpretation establishes that conception of the inventive concept must originate from humans to qualify for patent protection. While AI cannot currently be named as an inventor, IPOS recognizes AI's growing role in innovation, such as pharmaceuticals or Fintech. Singapore, known for its tech-forward policies, is carefully monitoring developments rather than rushing to change its laws. This balanced approach positions Singapore as both legally prudent and forward-thinking in the global AI patent debate. China: Emphasis on Human China has become a global AI leader and a top filer of AI-related patents. However, in terms of inventorship, its legal framework maintains a clear stance on AI inventorship: only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Chinese patent law. This position was reinforced in December 2024 when the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) introduced new Guidelines for Patent Applications for Artificial Intelligence-Related Inventions. These guidelines explicitly state that “the inventor must be an individual, and the application form shall not contain an entity or collective, nor the name of artificial intelligence.” This aligns with China’s civil law, which grants rights only to "civil subjects" (humans or legal entities, not AI). The CNIPA's position aligns with most major patent jurisdictions worldwide, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, Japan, and Australia, all of which have similarly rejected attempts to name AI systems like DABUS as inventors in recent rulings. Australia and South Africa In contrast to the major economies, Australia and South Africa have taken more adventurous stances. In South Africa, the DABUS patent was granted, which is the first (and so far only) in the world. However, South Africa’s patent system does not conduct substantive examination, so it’s more procedural rather than a deliberate policy shift. In Australia, a federal judge initially ruled that AI could be recognized as an inventor. However, the Full Federal Court later overturned that decision, returning Australia to the mainstream human-only position. Conclusion: The Future of AI and Patent Law The debate over AI inventorship is far from settled. While most jurisdictions currently reject AI as inventors, rapid advancements in generative AI may force legal systems to adapt. Meanwhile, many countries are now actively conducting public consultations and policy reviews, signaling a growing recognition that patent laws may need to evolve alongside AI's advancing capabilities. Ultimately, the question isn’t just about patents. It’s about how society defines creativity, ownership, and innovation in the age of artificial intelligence. Policymakers, businesses, and legal experts must work together to find solutions that balance IP protection with the realities of AI driven invention.