Description
»A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the United States«: This thesis asks a provocative question: Can AI be an inventor? The answer is: Yes. By applying the »2/7 Questions Process« from German and US patent law, it compares inventorship rules and evaluates the roles of humans and AI. Legal theories, historical precedents, and philosophical reflections together show that recognizing AI inventorship is both legally plausible and conceptually justified. »A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the United States«: This thesis asks a provocative question: Can AI be an inventor? The answer is: Yes. By applying the »2/7 Questions Process« from German and US patent law, it compares inventorship rules and evaluates the roles of humans and AI. Legal theories, historical precedents, and philosophical reflections together show that recognizing AI inventorship is both legally plausible and conceptually justified. 1. IntroductionBackground - Previous Literature - Gaps in Existing Literature and Contribution of This Study - Overview of the Structure - Scope of the Research2. Understanding AI in the Patent FieldThree Key Components Defining AI and the Significance of Understanding Software - Understanding AI Software - Today's Mass Production of AI Inventions - Comparison between AI Software and Human Brain3. Comparative Studies of the Requirements for Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the USIntroduction - Three Preliminary Remarks - The Invention Process - The Application Process - The Official Position of the Patent Office and Courts in both Germany and the US on AI Inventorship - Final Remarks and Critical Reflection4. The 2/7 Questions and Possible AI-related Candidates for Inventors when AI is ExcludedIntroduction - The 2/7 Questions: The Requirements for Inventorship - Possibility of Each Candidate's Inventorship - Possibility of Joint Inventorship of all Possible Candidates5. Empty Column to »Inventor's Name«Introduction - No Room for Unnamed Inventors in Existing Legal Frameworks - Three Models of Inventor Attribution - Why the Inventor Field Must Not Be Empty: Legal, Procedural, and Ethical Implications6. Affirmation of AI InventorshipOpposing AI as Inventor: Arguments and Counterarguments - The Four-Perspective Analysis in Support of AI Inventorship7. E-Person as InventorThe Current Legal Situation: The 'Inventor as a Formal Expression' and the 'Inventor as a Substantive Truth' - Establishment of 'E-Persons' - E-Persons in Patent Law: Conceptualizing the Legal Subject of the Inventive Process Myung-Ji Kang obtained her Bachelor of Law from the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies and later completed her LL.M. and Ph.D. in Law at the University of Göttingen under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Andreas Wiebe, LL.M. (Virginia). Her research focuses on IT law, intellectual property law, data protection, and AI law, particularly on the intersection of technological innovation, intellectual property, privacy, and the regulation of autonomous systems.
