A Legal Study on AI Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the United States

1. Introduction Background - Previous Literature - Gaps in Existing Literature and Contribution of This Study - Overview of the Structure - Scope of the Research 2. Understanding AI in the Patent Field Three 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 Brain 3. Comparative Studies of the Requirements for Inventorship Under Patent Law in Germany and the US Introduction - 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 Reflection 4. The 2/7 Questions and Possible AI-related Candidates for Inventors when AI is Excluded Introduction - The 2/7 Questions: The Requirements for Inventorship - Possibility of Each Candidate's Inventorship - Possibility of Joint Inventorship of all Possible Candidates 5. 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 Implications 6. Affirmation of AI Inventorship Opposing AI as Inventor: Arguments and Counterarguments - The Four-Perspective Analysis in Support of AI Inventorship 7. E-Person as Inventor The 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