Is there a need to rethink employee inventor remuneration in the light of AI involvement?
Published on 8th July 2025
With AI gaining relevance in invention-processes, questions arise about whether this might devalue inventor remuneration and how companies should react.
Many discussions have arisen in the past few years about AI’s potential to be recognized as the inventor of its output and the output’s eligibility as invention in patent law. Yet, few have talked about the consequences for the closely interlinked employee invention law and the remuneration obligations thereunder. Employees are entitled to remunerations for inventions made in context with their employment relationship. They more and more have access to and make use of AI tools supporting the invention process. Are these inventions made co-using AI considered as inventions under employee invention law? If so, one might well wonder how AI as the new link in the chain of “brains” involved in inventions will be taken into consideration when it comes to remunerating the involved inventors. Will the employees’ entitlement to remunerations stay untouched? Not necessarily. Especially the employee’s proportional share factor as part of the remuneration calculation formula might be affected – leading to not only a reduction of the remuneration owed but also to potential issues regarding patentability.
AI-inventions - patentability and ownership
The answer to the question of inventorship of AI comes with seldom determination and unity. According to several court rulings both in Germany and abroad AI can in no case be recognized as an inventor. The anthropocentricity of patent (and thus employee inventor) law requests for a human act of creation and an inventor that is capable of holding rights.
Even though the requirements for co-inventors are fairly lower, the same reasoning conveys to co-inventorship: AI itself cannot be co-inventor due to a lack of humanity.
Another question – that might appear to be the same but is not – is whether an invention that is made by AI or utilising AI will be recognized and can be registered as an invention. The answer is a slightly more complex but equally plausible and distinguishes three groups:
- an AI tool solves a problem after a human person set a task,
- an AI tool is used to confirm the results of human inventions,
- an AI tool has autonomously identified a problem as well as found the solution to the problem.
The abovementioned anthropocentricity calls for a human contribution that has significantly influenced the overall success – leaving only the two first groups to potentially be recognized as inventions.
Both approaches involve AI with the consequence that the human act of creation in the sense of brain capacities and creativity used for problem-solving diminishes. This leads to the core question of how remunerations and their calculation need to and, maybe, even have to be adjusted.
Employee inventor remuneration - implications of AI involvement
The basics of the inventor remuneration formula
In general, employee inventor remuneration (R) is calculated by multiplying the invention’s value (I) with a proportional share factor (P).
- R = I x P
The invention’s value is determined by its fictional market value, feigning a licence fee that would hypothetically be agreed upon on the free market (“licence analogy”). The proportional share factor describes the part the inventor played in achieving the invention and is entitled to. It is expressed as a percentage or decimal figures.
It consists of three subfactors: a) the extent to which the employee determined the task themself, b) the employee’s independence of employer’s support c) the employee’s position and corresponding insights in the company. The lower each factor is ranked, the more it decreases the employee’s proportional share factor and thus the level of remuneration.
- P = a) + b) + c)
The involvement of AI in the invention process does not categorically rule out the obligation to pay remunerations. Contrary to some, an “invention without an inventor” is not an empty shell in the sense of a merely formal right lacking substance. If and to the extent that a human is involved, they are, in general, entitled to remuneration. Nevertheless, AI’s involvement can affect several factors, resulting in a reduction of the remuneration.
Where AI makes an impact - the proportional share factor
Usage of AI will often touch two factors within the proportional share factor: the abovementioned factors b) (independence) and c) (position and insights). Accordingly, this can lead to the proportional share factor’s diminishing and result in a lower remuneration.
When an employee makes use of an AI tool provided by its employer, this accounts for a certain support in the problem-solving process which is to be considered in factor b). Therefore, the employee’s independence in finding the solution, is likely not as much present as without the AI tool. This – for many cases – will justify a reduction of their remuneration.
The same counts for the factor c): employees might not remain in their current categorisation regarding their insights. The use of AI can lead to higher performance expectations, thus justifying a demotion in the case of extensive application of AI.
A considerable involvement of AI tools in the invention process can result in a drastic reduction of the employee’s proportional share factor and, in extreme cases, even in the remunerations’ complete omission. This might bring companies to a certain line of thought: investments made in AI tools might eventually pay off and be compensated by saved costs regarding employee inventor remunerations.
Conclusion
On the bottom line, companies should consider rethinking their remuneration practices: unified lump sum remuneration agreements might not be up to date anymore, considering the extent to which a company makes use of and provides their employees with AI tools. The main impact of AI is that on the inventor’s proportional share factor. At first glance, the shrinkage of the employee inventor remuneration seems to be the only result. But in the second step, companies should consider the consequences for the invention’s patentability. Circling back to the question in which cases an AI invention is considered an invention: keep in mind that a patent calls for a certain degree of humanity in the act of creation. An insignificant human contribution can minimize the probability of the invention’s eligibility as patent. The lower the inventor's contribution to finding the solution, the lesser the significance of their contribution’s influence on the overall success. Therefore, it is vital for companies to find a balance between making use of the advantages of an application of AI and ensuring the invention’s patentability.
A special thanks to Luisa Jakobs for her support in writing this article.
