Written by The case of Stephen L. Thaler [2021] APO 5 considered a patent application in which the patent inventor was listed as the Artificial Intelligence (AI) system “DABUS.” The Deputy Commissioner of Patents determined that the Patents Act and Regulations were inconsistent with AI being recognised as an inventor.
Dr Thaler appealed to the Federal Court, where the Court held that an AI system could be recognised as an inventor, as this would accord with the word “inventor” in its natural and ordinary meaning, being a meaning that must not only recognise the ‘evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creations’ in light of the objects clause under the Patents Act, but also one that reflects reality.
On appeal, the Full Federal Court overturned this decision, and considered the important policy considerations that arise, opining that identification of the true inventor was critical, as the purpose of a patent is to reward the investors ingenuity and discovery. Against this background, the Court noted that the term ‘inventor,’ whilst not expressly defined in the Act, has long been held to mean the person responsible for the invention. In other words, the natural person or persons from who’s mind the idea for the invention came from. This interpretation is consistent with similar decisions in the US and UK.
Consequently, following this case it is likely that any recognition of AI as an ‘inventor’ for the purpose of the Patents Act is only going to arise through Legislative reform.