Switzerland is continuously shaping the future of AI law, especially where it overlaps with intellectual property and copyright. Three recent developments are worth watching: (i) a court decision on whether AI can be named as an inventor, (ii) a parliamentary motion that could tweak copyright rules and (iii) a proposed remuneration right for Swiss media companies.
1. Swiss Federal Administrative Court confirms: AI cannot be named as inventor of a patent
The DABUS case has become a global legal experiment, testing whether AI-generated inventions can be recognized under existing patent laws. Led by Dr. Stephen Thaler and supported by legal scholars, the initiative has prompted courts in multiple jurisdictions to weigh in on whether AI systems can be named as inventors.
Switzerland added its voice on 26 June 2025, when the Federal Administrative Court (“Court”) ruled in case B-2532/2024 that AI systems cannot be listed as inventors under the Swiss Patents Act (PatA). The case involved the AI machine known as Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS), which autonomously generated a food container design. Dr. Thaler has filed a Swiss national patent application, which (based on the international PCT application) listed DABUS as an inventor. The Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) rejected the application, citing that only natural persons qualify as inventors.
The Court upheld this view, relying on a systematic, historical and teleological reading of the PatA. It emphasized that provisions such as Articles 5 and 34 of the PatA require the inventor to be a person with a name, a residence and the ability to sign documents. These criteria exclude AI systems. It further considered that while personality rights may not be relevant for AI systems themselves, humans are still involved in the development and deployment of AI systems today. These individuals may have legitimate interests in personality protection or even claims to inventorship and patent rights.
The Court rejected the fallback request to proceed without naming any inventor but accepted the request to name Dr. Thaler himself as inventor. The Court found Thaler’s involvement sufficient to qualify him as the inventor. Specifically, he was involved in supplying data and training the AI system DABUS and then recognized that the output was patentable and forwarded this output to attorneys for patent registration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that whether it is technically feasible for DABUS to have made the invention without any additional input remains an open question. It emphasized that in patent law, it is not the path to an invention that is decisive, but rather the result. Therefore, even accidental inventions can be patentable provided the basic requirements for patentability are met. The IPI was thus ordered to resume examining the application, with Thaler listed as the inventor.
This is the first Swiss court decision to explicitly address the question of AI inventorship. The ruling reflects the dominant scholarly view that the current legal framework is not equipped to recognize AI systems as inventors. It aligns Switzerland with the prevailing international stance, as courts and patent offices in the EU, the UK, the US, Germany, Taiwan and Australia have similarly rejected DABUS applications.
Please note that at the date of this publication, it was not known whether the decision was appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
2. Gössi motion: Rethinking copyright in the age of generative AI
In December 2024, a member of the Swiss Council of States, Petra Gössi, submitted Motion 24.4596, titled “Better Protection of Intellectual Property from AI Misuse”. The motion calls on the Federal Council to ensure that Swiss copyright works are protected when used by providers of AI systems. It proposes that rights holders must give explicit permission before their works can be used to train generative AI systems and that providers of publicly available AI systems should not be allowed to invoke existing exceptions in the Swiss Copyright Act (CopA). It also stipulates that Swiss law shall apply and Swiss courts shall have jurisdiction if products of such systems are made available in Switzerland.
The Federal Council supported the motion, and the Council of States adopted it on 20 March 2025. Since then, the motion has entered a critical phase in the legislative process. In August 2025, the National Council’s Committee for Science, Education and Culture (WBK-N) began deliberations. While the committee acknowledged the motion’s potential to offer clear protections, particularly for the media sector, it also expressed concern about the motion’s broader implications including the potential impact on innovation. Expert hearings are planned for the next session, and the motion is scheduled for debate in the National Council during the autumn session (8 to 26 September 2025).
The motion has sparked public and political debate – and reflects a growing global trend toward regulating AI’s use of copyrighted content. While it has progressed in the legislative process, its future remains uncertain. The National Council may still reject or amend it. Even if adopted, the process of translating the motion into binding law will be lengthy and complex, involving public consultation and parliamentary approval. Given the pace of Swiss legislative procedures, a new law is unlikely to be in force before 2027. Whether adopted, or refused, the motion has certainly sparked a national debate, which will influence future Swiss AI regulation, especially in balancing innovation with rights protection. Switzerland’s innovation ecosystem relies on access to large datasets, protection of trade secrets, and flexible IP frameworks. Fragmentation may slow down innovation and discourage foreign investment. Stakeholders across sectors and industries are urged to engage in shaping practical, enforceable solutions.
3. Proposed snippet remuneration for Swiss media companies
Furthermore, the Federal Council has proposed a legislative amendment to the Swiss Copyright Act (CopA) to introduce a remuneration right for media companies when platforms display short excerpts (“Snippets”) of journalistic content. This initiative responds to concerns about the “zero-click” phenomenon, where users read headlines or summaries without visiting the original source.
Under the proposed system, large, profit-oriented online services with significant reach (defined as at least 10% of the Swiss population annually) would be required to pay a fee for using such Snippets. The right is structured as a collective remuneration claim, not an exclusive right. This means that platforms cannot be prohibited from displaying Snippets but must compensate media companies for doing so.
The proposed remuneration would be collected by a licensed collective rights management organization and distributed to eligible Swiss media companies and journalists. To qualify, media companies must adhere to recognized standards of journalistic practice. Importantly, journalists are entitled to a fair share of the proceeds, with the law mandating an unwaivable and non-transferable participation right. Unlike traditional copyright models that rely on usage metrics, funds will be distributed according to two qualitative criteria: the editorial effort invested (e.g., journalists’ salaries) and the contribution to democratic discourse through regular reporting on national, regional and local politics.
The Federal Council has recommended adopting the proposed changes in the CopA. AI-related concerns will likely be addressed during parliamentary deliberations on the Snippet remuneration right. The Swiss Parliament will now review and decide on adopting the proposed changes. The legislative process, including tariff negotiations and implementation, is expected to take at least a year.
4. Practical implications
The Federal Administrative Court’s decision brings welcome clarity: AI systems cannot be named as inventors under current Swiss law, confirming the prevailing interpretation and aligning Switzerland with international practice. The Court applied a relatively low threshold for human contribution, suggesting that recognizing and processing AI-generated output may suffice for inventorship in AI-assisted inventions. Companies and innovators relying on AI should carefully document human involvement in the inventive process to be prepared for potential scrutiny.
The Gössi motion, on the other hand, introduces uncertainty. If adopted, it could reshape the legal framework for generative AI in Switzerland, with implications for innovation, research and digital services. Stakeholders should monitor the parliamentary debate closely and consider participating in the consultation process should legislative drafts emerge. The same is true for the Snippet remuneration proposal. Whilst it is less directly tied to AI, it reflects a broader trend toward regulating digital content use and may intersect with AI-related copyright concerns in practice.
