令和６年（行コ）第１０００６号出願却下処分取消請求控訴事件

9/2/2025

特許協力条約に基づく国際出願をした上、出願に係る国内手続において、特許法１８４条の５第１項所定の国内書面として、発明者の氏名欄に「ダバス、本発明を自律的に発明した人工知能」と記載した国内書面を提出した控訴人（１審原告）の国際出願を却下した処分について、同処分は違法であるとしてその取消しを求める請求をした事例（原判決が東京地方裁判所令和５年(行ウ)第５００１号）の知財高裁判決が1月30日言い渡され、知財高裁は第一審判決を支持し控訴を棄却しました。
この東京地裁判決と知財高裁判決を生成AI（に読み込ませ、比較検討させましたので、添付のpdfをご覧ください。出来栄えは、各自ご判断ください。

令和６年（行コ）第１０００６号出願却下処分取消請求控訴事件　フードコンテナ並びに注意を喚起し誘引する装置及び方法
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/detail?id=6300
判決要旨
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/757/093757_point.pdf
判決全文
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/757/093757_hanrei.pdf

AIが100％開発でも特許権は人に？【“法廷の決断” 司法記者が徹底解説】
https://txbiz.tv-tokyo.co.jp/txn/kaisetsu/post_311993
AIが発明品を生み出した場合、その発明品はAIの発明と認められるのか？法廷の場で、日本で初めてAIをめぐる特許権の在り方が争われています。この裁判は、話をひも解くと、原告、被告という裁判で争っている両者、そして裁判所が同じ方向を見ていて、数ある訴訟の中でも珍しい形となっています。どういうことなのか、司法記者が徹底解説します。

関連動画「AIが生んだ“発明” 特許権はAI? 人?」
https://txbiz.tv-tokyo.co.jp/wbs/newsl/post_311652

発明者がAI、二審も特許権認めず　権利帰属「人に限定」
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUE285590Y5A120C2000000/
「ＡＩが発明」の特許は認めず…知財高裁「自然人に限られる」とした地裁判決を支持
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20250130-OYT1T50132/

Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ko) No. 10006
Appeal in the Case Seeking Revocation of the Disposition Refusing the Application

Following an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the appellant (plaintiff in the first instance) submitted a domestic document prescribed in Article 184-5, Paragraph (1) of the Patent Act during the domestic phase of the application. In the “Name of Inventor” field of that domestic document, the appellant wrote “DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously invented this invention.” The appellant’s international application was refused, and the appellant filed suit seeking revocation of that refusal on the grounds that it was unlawful. In this case (original judgment: Tokyo District Court Reiwa 5 (Gyo-U) No. 5001), the Intellectual Property High Court rendered its decision on January 30, upholding the first-instance judgment and dismissing the appeal.
We used generative AI to analyze and compare both the Tokyo District Court ruling and the IP High Court ruling. Please see the attached PDF for details. As for the quality of the AI-generated comparison, you may judge for yourself.

Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ko) No. 10006
Appeal in the Case Seeking Revocation of the Disposition Refusing the Application:
Food Container and Device/Method for Drawing Attention and Inducement
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/detail?id=6300
• Summary of Judgment
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/757/093757_point.pdf
• Full Text of Judgment
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/757/093757_hanrei.pdf

Is a Patent Right Awarded to Humans Even If AI Has Developed 100% of the Invention?
“Courtroom Decision” — An In-Depth Explanation by a Judicial Reporter
https://txbiz.tv-tokyo.co.jp/txn/kaisetsu/post_311993
If an AI creates an invention, can that invention be recognized as one made by AI? In Japan, a lawsuit addressing this question—how patent rights should be handled when AI is involved—has been brought to court for the first time. In fact, when one looks behind the lawsuit, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the court all share the same perspective, making this case quite unusual compared to typical litigation. What does that mean? A judicial reporter provides an in-depth explanation.

Related Video:
“Invention Created by AI—Are the Patent Rights for AI or for Humans?”
https://txbiz.tv-tokyo.co.jp/wbs/newsl/post_311652

Additional News Coverage
• “Inventor Is AI; Second Instance Also Denies Patent Right—Ownership Limited to Humans”
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUE285590Y5A120C2000000/
• “Patent for ‘AI as Inventor’ Not Recognized… IP High Court Upholds District Court Ruling That an Inventor Must Be a Natural Person”
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20250130-OYT1T50132/

0 Comments

よろず知財コンサルティングのブログ