{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.259Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-20", "slug": "epo-dabus-j8-20-j9-20", "titleZh": "欧洲专利局 DABUS 发明人上诉", "formalName": "Designation of inventor/DABUS, J 8/20 and J 9/20", "aliases": [ "DABUS EPO", "J 8/20" ], "summary": "欧洲专利局法律上诉委员会驳回两项将 DABUS 列为发明人的申请上诉，要求指定具有法律人格的自然人。", "professionalSummary": "J 8/20 与 J 9/20 是两项平行但分别编号的程序；委员会依据 EPC 第 81 条及实施细则第 19 条解释发明人指定要求。", "whyItMatters": "它确定了欧洲专利申请中 AI 系统不能被列为发明人的行政上诉标准。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "patent", "secondaryTopics": [], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action" ], "jurisdiction": "欧洲专利局·法律上诉委员会", "industries": [ "专利", "AI 研发" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 29, "impactScope": 21, "institutionalLevel": 19, "crossBorder": 9, "sustainedCoverage": 13, "total": 91 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": false, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-20:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-20", "formalName": "Designation of inventor/DABUS, J 8/20 and J 9/20", "identifier": "J 8/20", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "J 8/20", "ecli": "ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000820.20211221" }, "forum": "European Patent Office Legal Board of Appeal", "jurisdiction": "欧洲专利局·法律上诉委员会", "type": "patent-appeal", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2018-10-17", "endedAt": "2021-12-21", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j200008eu1" }, { "id": "matter-20:proceeding-2", "matterId": "matter-20", "formalName": "Designation of inventor/DABUS II, J 9/20", "identifier": "J 9/20", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "J 9/20", "ecli": "ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000920.20211221" }, "forum": "European Patent Office Legal Board of Appeal", "jurisdiction": "欧洲专利局·法律上诉委员会", "type": "patent-appeal", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2018-10-17", "endedAt": "2021-12-21", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j200009eu1" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-20:event-1", "matterId": "matter-20", "proceedingId": "matter-20:proceeding-1", "date": "2021-12-21", "type": "judgment", "title": "法律上诉委员会驳回两项上诉", "summary": "欧洲专利局法律上诉委员会维持拒绝：申请中指定的发明人必须是具有法律能力的自然人。", "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1", "matter-20:document-2" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1", "matter-20:claim-2", "matter-20:claim-procedure" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-20:document-1", "familyId": "matter-20:family-1", "matterId": "matter-20", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "title": "Designation of inventor/DABUS — J 8/20", "originalTitle": "Designation of inventor/DABUS — J 8/20", "url": "https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j200008eu1", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "epo", "publishedAt": "2021-12-21", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "J 8/20", "ecli": "ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000820.20211221" }, "language": "en" }, { "id": "matter-20:document-2", "familyId": "matter-20:family-2", "matterId": "matter-20", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "title": "Designation of inventor/DABUS II — J 9/20", "originalTitle": "Designation of inventor/DABUS II — J 9/20", "url": "https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j200009eu1", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "epo", "publishedAt": "2021-12-21", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "J 9/20", "ecli": "ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000920.20211221" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-20:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-20", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "text": "欧洲专利局法律上诉委员会维持拒绝：申请中指定的发明人必须是具有法律能力的自然人。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1" ], "asOf": "2021-12-21" }, { "id": "matter-20:claim-2", "matterId": "matter-20", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "text": "J 9/20 是与 J 8/20 平行、但具有独立编号的上诉决定；委员会同样维持发明人须为自然人的要求。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-2" ], "asOf": "2021-12-21" }, { "id": "matter-20:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-20", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "text": "J 8/20 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 European Patent Office Legal Board of Appeal 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1" ], "asOf": "2021-12-21" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "欧洲专利局收到两项把 DABUS 指定为发明人的专利申请。法律上诉委员会分别以 J 8/20 和 J 9/20 审理，并在 2021 年维持拒绝，要求申请指定具有法律能力的自然人；两项平行程序相关但保持独立编号。", "partiesZh": [ "DABUS 专利申请人 Stephen Thaler", "欧洲专利局" ], "aiSystemZh": "DABUS", "challengedConductZh": "欧洲专利局拒绝接受把 AI 系统列为发明人的两项欧洲专利申请。", "allegedHarmZh": "申请人主张 DABUS 应以实际产生发明的主体身份被指定；专利局认为 EPC 制度要求自然人发明人。", "proceduralOriginZh": "两项申请始于 2018 年 10 月 17 日，法律上诉委员会于 2021 年 12 月 21 日分别决定 J 8/20 与 J 9/20。", "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1", "matter-20:claim-2", "matter-20:claim-procedure" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1", "matter-20:document-2" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "matterId": "matter-20", "titleZh": "EPC 发明人指定是否允许 AI", "questionZh": "EPC 第 81 条和实施细则第 19 条是否允许申请把没有法律人格的 AI 系统指定为发明人？", "contextZh": "发明人指定不仅记录技术来源，也连接姓名、法律能力和权利来源等制度功能。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法律上诉委员会维持拒绝，认定申请必须指定具有法律能力的自然人。", "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation:position-1", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "sideZh": "申请人", "positionZh": "主张 DABUS 是实际发明主体，应如实列名。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation:position-2", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "sideZh": "欧洲专利局", "positionZh": "认为 EPC 发明人指定要求自然人及相应法律能力，获上诉委员会维持。", "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "matterId": "matter-20", "titleZh": "法律人格与发明人权利", "questionZh": "没有法律人格的机器能否承担 EPC 发明人身份所连接的权利和程序功能？", "contextZh": "委员会把自然人身份与发明人可享有和转移的法律地位联系，而非仅把发明人视为技术标签。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "委员会认定 DABUS 不具备法定发明人指定所需的法律人格和能力。", "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity:position-1", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "sideZh": "申请人", "positionZh": "主张发明人指定应反映机器的实际创造角色。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity:position-2", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "sideZh": "欧洲专利局", "positionZh": "认为发明人身份具有法律功能，不能赋予不具法律人格的机器。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "matterId": "matter-20", "titleZh": "J 8/20 与 J 9/20 的独立性", "questionZh": "两项 DABUS 申请应如何在共同法律理由下关联，而不把两个程序错误合并？", "contextZh": "两案在同日决定且法律问题一致，但具有独立申请、案号和 ECLI。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法律上诉委员会分别驳回 J 8/20 与 J 9/20，两项决定各自维持对应申请的拒绝。", "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1", "matter-20:claim-2" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals:position-1", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "sideZh": "申请人", "positionZh": "分别就两项申请提出上诉。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals:position-2", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "sideZh": "程序记录", "positionZh": "共同法律结论不改变两项上诉和两个 ECLI 的独立记录。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-20:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-20", "proceedingId": "matter-20:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-20:event-1", "date": "2021-12-21", "outcomeZh": "欧洲专利局法律上诉委员会分别驳回 J 8/20 与 J 9/20，维持两项把 DABUS 列为发明人的申请被拒。", "holdingsZh": [ "欧洲专利申请指定的发明人必须是具有法律能力的自然人。", "DABUS 不能满足 EPC 第 81 条及实施细则第 19 条的发明人指定要求。", "J 8/20 与 J 9/20 是分别决定的平行程序。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "EPC 的发明人制度把身份指定与可由法律主体享有的权利和程序功能连接。", "不具法律人格的机器不能承担该制度中的发明人地位。" ], "reliefZh": "驳回两项上诉并维持对应专利申请的拒绝；未命令欧洲专利局接受 DABUS 为发明人。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "决定处理欧洲专利申请的发明人指定，不解决自然人借助 AI 发明时如何认定其贡献。", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "appealStatusZh": "两项法律上诉委员会程序均于 2021 年 12 月 21 日结束；现有案卷未列进一步复审程序。", "documentIds": [ "matter-20:document-1", "matter-20:document-2" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-20:claim-1", "matter-20:claim-2" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-legal-capacity-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-legal-capacity-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 5 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-epo-inventor-designation", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-legal-capacity-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-legal-capacity-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-legal-capacity", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-20-matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-20-matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-20", "issueId": "matter-20:issue-parallel-appeals", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 5 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "epo", "slug": "epo", "name": "European Patent Office Boards of Appeal", "homepage": "https://www.epo.org/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "boston-college-law-review", "slug": "boston-college-law-review", "name": "Boston College Law Review", "homepage": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，出版平台提供作者、卷期、页码和稳定文章记录。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "patently-o", "slug": "patently-o", "name": "Patently-O", "homepage": "https://patentlyo.com/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "长期追踪美国专利判例和政策的专业出版物，通常深链案卷材料；评论与裁判结论分开。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 15, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 88 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/epo-dabus-j8-20-j9-20" }