Zusammenfassung von Article 081 EPC für die Entscheidung T0528/25 vom 05.02.2026

In T 528/25 the appeal was directed against the decision of the examining division to reject the European patent application, since none of the requests on file contained a designation of the inventor that met the requirements of Art. 81 and R. 19 EPC. In J 8/20 the Legal Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal against the refusal by the Receiving Section of the parent application, in which the applicant had intended to designate the artificial intelligence machine "DABUS" as inventor. In the case at hand, the board first considered the legal framework regarding the designation of an inventor in the context of inventions made by using artificial intelligence (AI) as well as the reasons provided in J 8/20 (and J 9/20). The board concluded that, in principle, the designation of an inventor under the EPC is also possible for inventions developed using AI. In the main request, the appellant had designated himself as the inventor in EPO Form 1002. However, in the Addendum to this form he had stated that "A machine called "DABUS" conceived of the present invention" and that the appellant was "not an inventor under traditional criteria", because "in the case of the present invention, the machine only received training in general knowledge in the field and proceeded to independently conceive of the invention and to identify it as novel and salient. If the training Dr Thaler provided DABUS had been given to a person, that person would meet inventorship criteria as inventor. In the present case, DABUS was not created to solve any particular problem, was not trained on any special data relevant to the present invention, and the machine rather than a person identified the novelty and salience of the present invention." The board held that the statements presented in EPO Form 1002, on the one hand, and in the Addendum, on the other, did not contain a clear and unambiguous designation of the inventor as required under Art. 81 EPC and R. 19 EPC. The formulations in the Addendum did not merely supplement the statement in EPO Form 1002 with information that the invention was devised by using an AI-machine, but rather called into question the statement in EPO Form 1002 that the appellant should be formally indicated as the (only) inventor. Therefore, the main request was not allowable. The first and second auxiliary requests included the following information in the Addendum: "A machine called "DABUS" had been caused to conceive of the present invention Dr Thaler had caused a specific machine called DABUS to conceive of the invention disclosed and claimed in this European patent application. Dr Thaler owns DABUS, built DABUS, trained DABUS, and used DABUS. In the present case, DABUS was not created to solve any particular problem, was not trained on any special data relevant to the present invention, and DABUS identified the novelty and salience of the present invention. (...)" The board noted that the decisive question was how the appellant's declarations as a whole were to be formally understood. In light of the explanations in the Addendum, it could not be established clearly and beyond doubt in the context of the formal examination under Art. 81 EPC and R. 19 EPC that (only) the appellant was to be designated as inventor. Likewise, the board found that the third auxiliary request was not allowable under Art. 81 EPC and R. 19 EPC. This request comprised only EPO Form 1002 with the following wording: "Stephen L. Thaler der die künstliche Intelligenz DABUS dazu veranlasst hat, die Erfindung zu generieren." The board noted that EPO Form 1002 was to be used in cases where the applicant was not the (sole) inventor, i.e. where R. 19(1), second sentence, EPC applied. While this use of this form might be unobjectionable if only the name of the applicant appears, the use of EPO Form 1002 together with the statement "der die künstliche Intelligenz Dabus dazu veranlasst hat, die Erfindung zu generieren" made the designation of inventor unclear and inconsistent. The board further noted that the present case differed from the factual situation underlying the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice of 11 June 2024 (BGH X ZB 5/22), in which a corresponding wording on the form was accepted. The form "Erfinderbenennung", on which the German case was based, generally also applies if the applicant himself is the sole inventor. Furthermore, it was expressly added by filling in on page 2 of the form the statement that "Erfinder ist Anmelder", i.e. the inventor is the applicant. The fourth auxiliary request was not admitted into the appeal proceedings according to Art. 13(2) and 12(6) RPBA, and the board dismissed the appeal.