Should we allow patents for ai-generated inventions?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2025.32.20242

Keywords:

patents, artificial intelligence, invention, moral right, intellectual property, social contract

Abstract

The importance of artificial intelligences (AIs) is growing, both in their impact on human life and in academic reflection. The aim of this article is to examine whether, even if we are willing to assume that AIs are capable of inventing, we should or should not consider them inventors for legal purposes, understanding that this is a condition that allows them, for example, to patent, and even enjoy certain moral rights and more general intellectual property rights. This contribution focuses on examining AIs as inventors through the figure of the patent, and argues that recognizing patents for inventions generated by AIs would generate negative consequences for the very justification of intellectual property in science and technology. It is argued, more specifically, that the recovery of invention costs through commercial exclusivity is not in the interest of AI, but only of the owners or those who were first its inventors. This implies the more fundamental question of whether AIs deserve such social recognition, a case that is examined with the help of two recent court decisions. In addition, it focuses on two possible negative practical consequences of this recognition, related to the quantity and time of patent examination. This contribution is of interest to the ethics of technology and to law, and can also inspire public policies relevant to the relationship between AI and people.

281 204

Author Biography

  • Benedicto Acosta, University of Salamanca

    Doctor en Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia por la Universidad de Salamanca. Su ámbito de especialización es la filosofía e historia de la ciencia y la tecnología, en especial la relación entre las patentes y la propiedad intelectual con la ciencia y las tecnologías contemporáneas. Es editor de la revista Artefactos, del Instituto de Estudios de la Ciencia y la Tecnología de la Universidad de Salamanca.

References

Abbott R. (2023). Allow patents on AI-generated inventions - for the good of science. Nature, 620(7975), 699.

Aboy, M., Lath, A., Minssen, T., & Liddell, K. (10 2024). The sufficiency of disclosure of AI inventions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19, 834–840. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpae063

Acosta, B. (2024). On value-laden patents: a call for moral limits. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 40(4), 829-844.

Acosta, B. (2025). Values Matter: Patent Office, Innovation and the Social Contract. Revista de Economía Institucional, 27(52), 341-356.

Baruffaldi, S. H., & Simeth, M. (2020). Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure. Research Policy, 49(4), 103927.

Bianchini, S., Müller, M., & Pelletier, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention. Research Policy, 51(10), 104604.

Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. (2013). The Case against Patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 3-22.

Breakey, H. (2012). Intellectual Liberty: Natural Rights and Intellectual Property (1st ed.). Routledge.

Cappelli, R., Corsino, M., Laursen, K., & Torrisi, S. (2023). Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate. Research Policy, 52(6), 104785. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104785

Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 819–844.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. The MIT Press.

Coeckelbergh. M. (2022). The Political Philosophy of AI: An Introduction. Polity.

Creel, K. A. (2020). Transparency in Complex Computational Systems. Philosophy of Science, 87(4), 568–589.

Currey, R., y Owen, J. (2021, 29 de septiembre). In the Courts: Australian Court finds AI systems can be “inventors”. WIPO Magazine. https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/in-the-courts-australian-court-finds-ai-systems-can-be-inventors-42195

David, P. (1993). Intellectual Property Institutions and the Panda’s Thumb: Patents, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets in Economic Theory and History. In Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology. (pp. 19-61). The National Academies Press.

de Rassenfose, G., Jaffe, A., y Wasserman, M. (2024). AI-Generated Inventions: Implications for the Patent System. Southern California Law Review, 96(6), 1453-1478.

de Rassenfosse, G., & Higham, K. (2021). Decentralising the patent system. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101559. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101559

Denicolò, V., and Franzoni, L. A. (2003). The contract theory of patents. International Review of Law and Economics, 23(4), 365–380.

Drexl, J., Hilty, R., Kim, D., & Slowinski, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, (21-20). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3919588.

Ebrahim, T. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Inventions & Patent Disclosure. Penn State Law Review, 125(1), 147-221.

Engel, A. (2020). Can a Patent Be Granted for an AI-Generated Invention? GRUR International, 69(11), 1123–1129. doi:10.1093/grurint/ikaa117

Francisco. (2025). Antiqua et Nova. Nota sobre la relación entre la inteligencia artificial y la inteligencia humana. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_sp.html

Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2023). Patents of Persuasion. Tempo-Metrics and the Shaping of Knowledge about Knowledge. Journal for the History of Knowledge, 4, 215-238.

Johansen, E. (2022). Inventions without inventors: The challenge of applying patent law objectives to AI generated inventions. [Graduate Thesis. Universidad de Lund.] https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9104501

Khan, B. Z. (2005). The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920. Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, J. M. (2011). Information Overload at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Reframing the Duty of Disclosure in Patent Law as a Search and Filter Problem. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 90, 89–140.

Kuismin, A. (2019). Black Box AI – The Problem with Sufficient Disclosure. En R. Koulu y L. Kontiainen, How Will AI Shape the Future of Law? University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab. https://www.helsinki.fi/assets/drupal/2022-11/how_will_ai_shape_the_future_of_law_2.pdf

Lucchi, N. (2024). ChatGPT: A Case Study on Copyright Challenges for Generative Artificial Intelligence Systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(3), 602–624.

Machlup, F., & Penrose, E. (1950). The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century. The Journal of Economic History, 10(1), 1–29.

Moser, P. (2013). Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 23–44.

Nueno, X. (2023). El arte del saber ligero. Una breve historia del exceso de información. Siruela.

Oficina Europea de Patentes. (2021). Caso J 0008/20 sobre designación del inventor DABUS. https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j200008eu1

Oficina Europea de Patentes. (2022). Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Oficina de Publicaciones de la EPO.

Ordelin Font, J.L. (2024). Los sistemas de inteligencia artificial como inventores: consideraciones para un debate a partir de fallos judiciales. En N. González Martín, et al. (Eds.), El Derecho Internacional Público en la obra de Manuel Becerra Ramírez (pp. 207-223). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Peters, M. A., Jackson, L., Papastephanou, M., Jandrić, P., Lazaroiu, G., Evers, C. W., … Fuller, S. (2023). AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, philosophy and education – Critical responses. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(9), 828–862.

Ravid, S., Liu, X. (2018). When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: An Alternative Model for Patent Law at the 3A Era. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 2215-2262.

Sánchez García, L. (2020). Inventor artificial: Un reto para el Derecho de patentes. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.

Samuelson, P. (2023). Generative AI meets copyright. Science, 381, 158–161. doi:10.1126/science.adi0656

Smith, H. (2021). Clinical AI: opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability. AI & SOCIETY, 36, 535–545. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01019-6

Sterckx, S., & Cockbain, J. (2024). Is artificial intelligence a threat to the patent system? Some reflections on AI, creativity and inventorship, with illustrations from the DABUS case. En H. Ullrich, P. Drahos, & G. Ghidini (Eds.), Kritika: essays on intellectual property (Vol. 6, pp. 140–163). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035339822.00013

Tegernsee Experts Group. (2012). Study mandated by the Tegernsee Heads: 18-Month publication. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/global/18_months_publication.pdf

Yang, W., & Wang, X. (2024). The impact of patent protection on technological innovation: A global value chain division of labor perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 203, 123370. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123370

Zatarain, J. M. N. (2017). The role of automated technology in the creation of copyright works: the challenges of artificial intelligence. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31(1), 91–104.

Prometeica v.32

Downloads

Published

2025-11-09

Issue

Vol. 32 (2025): Prometeica - v 32 (03/2025 - 12/2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Benedicto Acosta

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Sciences is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

 

Copyright maintenance

Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyright without restrictions.

Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction.

Received 2025-03-05
Accepted 2025-07-07
Published 2025-11-09

How to Cite

Acosta, B. (2025). Should we allow patents for ai-generated inventions?. Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Science, 32, e20242 (1-13). https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2025.32.20242