Dutch Patent Law Struggles to Keep Pace with AI-Generated Inventions

Dutch Patent Law Struggles to Keep Pace with AI-Generated Inventions

2026-01-04 data

Netherlands, Sunday, 4 January 2026.
Legal uncertainty surrounds AI-generated inventions in the Netherlands as current patent law lacks clear guidance on ownership rights. While the Dutch Patents Act addresses employee inventions, it doesn’t specify who owns innovations created by artificial intelligence - the employer, employee, or AI system itself. Recent European rulings confirm only humans can be listed as inventors, yet AI increasingly drives research and development across Dutch industries. Companies risk disputes without proper AI usage policies, while employees may still claim fair compensation for valuable AI-assisted innovations, creating complex legal challenges.

Three Levels of AI Innovation Challenge Traditional Patent Framework

The integration of artificial intelligence into research and development processes has created three distinct categories of innovation that challenge existing patent frameworks [1]. AI functions as a tool when researchers use machine learning to predict effective molecules against viruses, as a co-creator in generative design applications that produce components 40% lighter than traditional alternatives, and as autonomous AI in simulations that discover new heat-resistant alloys [1]. The Dutch Patents Act (Rijksoctrooiwet) from 1995, which forms the foundation of innovation protection in the Netherlands, grants holders exclusive rights to commercially exploit inventions for up to 20 years but assumes under Article 8 that an inventor must be a natural person [1]. This legal framework, established decades before the current AI revolution, now faces unprecedented challenges as companies increasingly rely on artificial intelligence for breakthrough innovations.

European Rulings Confirm Human-Only Invention Rights

Recent legal precedents have definitively established that artificial intelligence systems cannot be recognized as inventors under current patent law. The landmark DABUS case at the European Patent Office confirmed that AI systems cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications because artificial intelligence lacks legal personality [1]. Marco Coolen from AOMB Intellectual Property, headquartered in Eindhoven, North Brabant, emphasized this position in January 2026, stating that only humans can legally be inventors and that AI cannot be registered at patent offices [5]. This ruling aligns with similar decisions in the United States and United Kingdom, where only humans can be designated as inventors, though some discussion remains about the degree of human input required in American patent law [1]. The implications extend beyond simple designation requirements, as companies must now navigate complex questions about human contribution levels in AI-assisted innovations.

Employee Rights and Compensation in AI-Driven Innovation

The Rijksoctrooiwet Article 12 establishes that patent rights generally belong to employees who create inventions, unless they were specifically hired to innovate or their work involves using specialized knowledge for such purposes, in which case the employer owns the patent [1]. However, even when patents belong to employers as service inventions, employees retain rights to fair monetary compensation under Article 12, paragraph 6, if their salary doesn’t already account for their inventions [1]. The determination of this “billijke vergoeding” depends on multiple factors including the economic value of the invention, the employee’s creative contribution, their job role and salary, and the employer’s resources [1]. A practical example illustrates the complexity: an AI algorithm saving a logistics company €500,000 annually, developed by an employee earning €60,000 gross annually, could warrant a one-time bonus ranging from €10,000 to €25,000 [1]. Law & More specialists report increasing disputes in 2026 because companies lack comprehensive AI usage policies [1].

The current legal framework requires significant modernization to address technological advancements in artificial intelligence, as acknowledged by legal experts who note that patent law will need updating in the long term [1]. TNO, the Netherlands’ applied research organization, actively manages intellectual property through its Legal Compliance & IP department, offering flexible technology transfer options including patent licenses, evaluation licenses, IP transfers, and support for spin-offs through tech participation programs [4]. The organization’s strategic approach to IP management considers the interests of partners, public financiers, and the broader Dutch and European economy while maintaining technological sovereignty [4]. Meanwhile, companies face immediate challenges as they navigate the legal uncertainty surrounding AI-generated innovations, with employers bearing the burden of proof to demonstrate that employees were hired to innovate and that inventions occurred within employment scope [1]. Software can be patented if it causes a technical effect in the physical world, but the integration of AI complicates these determinations as the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated [1].

Bronnen


AI innovations patent law