A Comparative Study on the Legal Challenges of Ownership of Inventions Created by Generative Artificial Intelligence

Rahbari, Ebrahim; Meshkat, Seyed Mostafa

doi:10.48308/eclr.2025.238330.1127

A Comparative Study on the Legal Challenges of Ownership of Inventions Created by Generative Artificial Intelligence

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ebrahim Rahbari ¹ ^¶

Seyed Mostafa Meshkat ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. Corresponding Author Email: e_rahbari@sbu.ac.ir

² Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.48308/eclr.2025.238330.1127

Abstract

The rapid pace of developments in generative artificial intelligence has placed the urgent adaptation and alignment of the intellectual property system with these advancements at the center of attention more than ever before. Today, the diversity and dynamism of innovations created through generative AI are undeniable. Nevertheless, policymakers have yet to provide adequate answers to the legal questions and challenges associated with such inventions—particularly regarding their ownership. The absence of a coherent and transparent approach to identifying the rightful holder of patent rights for AI-generated inventions is clearly reflected in the DABUS case, which demonstrated that even the judiciary has not been able to remedy the legislative shortcomings and deficiencies in this area through thoughtful and effective interpretation of the law. In light of this, the findings of this study reveal that, through flexible interpretation, distinguishing between the economic and moral rights arising from patents generated by generative AI, and by giving greater consideration to the role of the end user, some of the complexities surrounding this issue can be alleviated. Furthermore, this research seeks—through a descriptive and analytical study and in light of comparative legal teachings—to clarify what strategies and policies actors within the patent system, including those in Iran’s legal framework, should adopt when dealing with generative AI inventions.

Keywords

Generative AI

Machine Learning

Patent Law

Intellectual Property Law

New Technologies Law

References

Books
1. Abbott, Frederick M., Thomas Cottier, Francis Gurry, Ryan B. Abbott, Mira Burri, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, and Maegan McCann. International Intellectual Property in an Integrated World Economy: [Connected EBook]. Aspen Publishing, 2024.
2. Abbott, Ryan, ed. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.
3. Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2021.
4. Bucknell, Duncan Geoffrey, ed. Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology and Chemical Inventions: World Protection and Exploitation. 1. Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
5. Drude, Niklas. How to Prompt Better: A Beginner's Guide to Working with AI. Germany: Amazon Digital Services LLC – Kdp. 2023.
6. Gaon, Aviv H. The Future of Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
7. Gassmann, Oliver, Martin A. Bader, and Mark James Thompson. Patent Management: Protecting Intellectual Property and Innovation. Cham: Springer, 2021.
8. Kreps, David, Robert Davison, Taro Komukai, and Kaori Ishii. Human Choice and Digital by Default: Autonomy vs Digital Determination. Springer International Publishing, 2022.
9. Peng, Shin-yi, Ching-Fu Lin, and Thomas Streinz, eds, Artificial Intelligence and International Economic Law, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
10. Taplin, Ruth. Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Cyber Risk and Robotics: A New Digital Age. Routledge, 2023.
11. Getting the Innovation Ecosystem Ready for AI an IP Policy Toolkit. By World Intellectual Property Organization Publication, Swiss. 2024.
Articles
1. Ackerman, Rachel, "Is the World Ready to Accept Artificial Intelligence as an Inventor?.," DePaul L. Rev, 72, 2022, pp. 835-865.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review
1. Afshar, Mimi S, "Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship-Does the Patent Inventor Have to Be Human?", Hastings Sci. & Tech. LJ 13, 2022, PP 56-72. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ hastings_science_technology_law_journal
2. Amir Shahkarami, Seyed Hamid. and shakeri, Zahra., "A Perspective of the Patent Regime in the Light of the Use of Artificial Intelligence."Science and Technology Policy Letters, Vol.13, No. 2, 2023, PP. 23-89. (in Persian) https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1402.13.2.3.7
3. Chesterman, Simon, "Good Models Borrow, Great Models Steal: Intellectual Property Rights and Generative AI", Policy and Society,2024, Puae006, PP. 1-22.
4. Chikhaoui, Emna, and Saghir Mehar, "Artificial Intelligence (AI) Collides with Patent Law", Legal Ethical & Regul. Isses, No.23, 2020, PP 1-10.
5. Daniel, R. E, "Can Courts Protect the Patent System from Creative AI? ", Practical Lawyer, Vol. 69, No. 3. 2023, PP 1-9.
6. Dornis, Tim W, "Artificial Intelligence and Innovation: the End of Patent Law as We Know It", Yale JL & Tech, No.23, 2020, PP. 97-159. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3668137or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3668137
7. Drexl, Josef, Reto Hilty, Daria Kim, and Peter R. Slowinski, "Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide", A Position Statement of 7, 2021, PP. 1-11.
8. Ferrero Guillén, Rebeca, and Altair Breckwoldt Jurado, "Vagueness in Artificial Intelligence: The ‘Fuzzy Logic’of AI-Related Patent Claims", Digital Society 2, No. 1 2023, PP. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00032-0
9. Fessenko, Dessislava, "Can Artificial Intelligence (Re) Define Creativity?", 2022.
10. Gheysari Atrabi, Zahra, Shakeri, Zahra and Yousefi Sadeghlou, Ahmad, “A Look at the DABUS Case: A Perspective on the Future Patent System”, Journal of Private Law21, No. 1, 2024, PP. 71-89. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22059/jolt.2024.365991.1007232
11. Gmeiner, Robert,"International Free Riding on Institutions." Economic Affairs,41, No. 1 2021, PP. 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fecaf.12452
12. hastings_science_technology_law_journal
13. Heon, Lexi, "Artificially Obvious But Genuinely New: How Artificial Intelligence Alters the Patent Obviousness Analysis", Seton Hall L. Rev, No.53, 2022, PP. 359-386.
14. Hopes, Briana, "Rights for Robots? US Courts and Patent Offices Must Consider Recognizing Artificial Intelligence Systems as Patent Inventors", Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop, 23, 2021, PP. 120-134.
15. Kim, Daria, "The Paradox of the DABUS Judgment of the German Federal Patent Court", GRUR International, 71, No. 12, 2022, PP. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac125
16. Knutson, Kaelyn R, "Anything You Can Do, AI Can't Do Better: An Analysis of Conception As a Requirement for Patent Inventorship and a Rationale for Excluding AI Inventors", Cybaris Intell. Prop. L. Rev. No.11,2020, PP. 1-28. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol11/iss2/2
17. Lavrichenko, Michelle, "Thaler v. Vidal: Artificial Intelligence-Can the Invented Become the Inventor", CARDOZo L. REv, 44, 2022, PP. 700-735.
18. Matulionyte, Rita, "AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?", J. Intell. Prop. Info. & Elec. Com. L, No.13, 2022, PP. 1-24.
19. Mendoza-Caminade, Alexandra, ed. L'entreprise et l'intelligence artificielle-Les réponses du droit. Presses de l’Université Toulouse Capitole, 2023, PP. 197-221.
20. Merritt, Cole G, "A Compulsory Solution to the Machine Problem: Recognizing Artificial Intelligence as Inventors in Patent Law", J. Ent. & Tech. L. No.25, 2023, pp 211-237.
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol25/iss1/5
1. Odeh, Morris K. "Patenting Inventions Generated by Artificial Intelligence: The Way Forward." The Gravitas Review of Business & Property Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2020, PP. 1-12. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3910124 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3910124
2. Ooi, Keng-Boon, Garry Wei-Han Tan, Mostafa Al-Emran, Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi, Alexandru Capatina, Amrita Chakraborty, Yogesh K. Dwivedi et al, "The Potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence Across Disciplines: Perspectives and Future Directions", Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2023, PP. 1-32.
3. Patra, Dr Soumya Prakash, "Artificial Inventors: A Shift in Traditional Policy Paradigm", Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), 26, No. 3, 2022, pp. 119-126.
4. Savrai, P., "The Challenges Facing the Human-Centered Copyright Regime with the Evolution of Artificial Intelligence."Economic and Commercial Law Researches, Vol. 2, No.3, 2025, PP. 11-40. (in Persian).
https://doi.org/10.48308/eclr.2025.236827.1078.
1. Schlagwein, Daniel, and Leslie Willcocks, "‘ChatGPT et al.’: The Ethics of Using (Generative) Artificial Intelligence in Research and Science", Journal of Information Technology,38, No. 3, 2023, PP. 232-238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231200411
1. Schwartz, David L., and Max Rogers, " Inventorless" Inventions? The Constitutional Conundrum of AI-Produced Inventions." JL & Tech, No.35, 2021, PP. 530-579. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4025434
2. Schwein, Rachel L. "Patentability and Inventorship of AI-Generated inventions." Washburn LJ, 60, 2020, pp 583-585.
3. Shakeri, Zahra, and Miladi Qomi, Mohammad Matin, "An Inquiry into Some Legal Aspects of Chatbots: Examining Personality Rights, Civil Liability, and Intellectual Property", Journal of New Technologies Law,6, No. 11, 2025, PP. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.22133/mtlj.2024.433651.1284
4. Sharma, Sakshi, and Devesh Pandey, "The Use of AI in Patent Law: Issues and Challenges", Issue 5 Indian JL & Legal Rsch. No.4, 2022, PP. 1-9.
5. Smith, Jessica. "Let Me Get My Human for That: The Struggles of a Broken Patent System for AI Inventors", J. Int'l L. No.29,2023, PP 160-186.
6. Smits, Jan, and Tijn Borghuis, "Generative AI and Intellectual Property Rights." In Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice, 2022, pp. 323-344.
7. Sun, Haochen, "Artificial Intelligence Inventions", St. UL Rev, No. 50, 2022, PP. 61-122. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol50/iss1/2
8. Villasenor, John, "Reconceptualizing Conception: Making Room for Artificial intelligence inventions", Santa Clara High Tech. LJ, No. 39, 2022, PP. 197-230. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol39/iss2/2
9. Ward, Trevor F. "DABUS, An Artificial Intelligence Machine, Invented Something New and Useful, but the USPTO is not Buying", Me. L. Rev. No.75, 2023, PP. 72-100.
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol75/iss1/4
1. Wu, Jeffrey. "Bridging the AI inventorship gap", Fordham L. Rev, No.91, 2022, PP. 2515-2547. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol91/iss6/11
2. Yilmaz, Ramazan, and Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz. "Augmented Intelligence in Programming Learning: Examining Student Views on the Use of ChatGPT for Programming Learning." Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1, No. 2, 2023, PP. 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005

Online Sources
1. China Widens Lead Over US in AI Patents After Beijing Tech Drive, 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-24/china-widens-lead-over-us-in-ai-patents-after-beijing-tech-drive (accessed: February 25, 2025).
2. Brittain, Brittain. Patents on AI Creations Require 'Significant' Human Input, USPTO Says, Reuters. 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/patents-ai-creations-require-significant-human-input-uspto-says-2024-02-12/ (accessed: February 25, 2025).
3. Gastaldi, Laura, Tiberio, Massimiliano, Crisci, Francesca. AI as Inventor: Legal Challenges and Implications for Patent Law, 2023.
https://www.dlapiper.com/en-pe/insights/publications/law-in-tech/ai-as-inventor-legal-challenges-and-implications-for-patent-law (accessed: February 25, 2025).
1. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/judgments/details/1529 (accessed: February 25, 2025).
2. IcMiller Law Firm. Patents in the AI Era: Navigating the Complexities of AI Inventorship. 2023. https://www.icemiller.com/thought-leadership/patents-in-the-ai-era-navigating-the-complexities-of-ai-inventorship (accessed: February 25, 2025).
3. Lohr, Steve. "Can AI Invent, " The Newyork Times. (July 15, 2023).
4. McDermott, Eileen. "Supreme Court Dodges AI Inventor Question with Denial of DABUS Case. 2023," https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/04/24/supreme-court-dodges-ai-inventor-question-denial-dabus-case/id=159986/. (accessed: February 25, 2025).
5. Mckinlay, Andrew. EPO Publishes Reasons for Decision in DABUS AI Inventorship Case. 2022. https://www.pagewhite.com/news/epo-publishes-reasons-for-decision-in-dabus-ai-inventorship-case(accessed: February 25, 2025).
6. Naruto v. Slater. Case Available at:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf (accessed: February 25, 2025).
1. Sandys, Amy. Germany’s Latest Dabus Decision Aligns with European Approach. (28 June 2023). https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/germanys-latest-dabus-decision-aligns-with-european-approach/(accessed: February 25, 2025).
2. Van Der Herten, kathy. Patent Office Sustainability and the Role of Artificial Intelligence, WIPO Magazine, 2023. Available at:
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2023/article_0001.html (accessed: February 25, 2025).
1. The Artificial Inventor Project, WIPO Magazine, 2019. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2019/06/article_0002.html (accessed: February 25, 2025).