Commissioner of Patents v Thaler

The case of Commissioner of Patents v Thaler involved a dispute over the eligibility of an invention created by an artificial intelligence machine, DABUS, to be patented in Australia. The Commissioner of Patents, acting under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), rejected the patent application because DABUS, the inventor, was not a natural person. Dr. Stephen Thaler, the owner of DABUS, contested this decision. The central legal issue was whether the term "inventor" in the Patents Act could encompass an artificial intelligence entity.

The Court of Appeal had to determine the meaning of "inventor" under the Patents Act and whether the statutory provisions could accommodate an artificial intelligence as an inventor. The Deputy Commissioner of Patents had ruled that an artificial intelligence could not be an inventor, leading to the rejection of the patent application. Dr. Thaler appealed this decision, arguing that the ordinary meaning of "inventor" should be interpreted broadly to include non-human agents. The primary judge set aside the Deputy Commissioner's decision, finding that the term "inventor" could indeed include an artificial intelligence, aligning with the object of the Patents Act to promote technological innovation.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge erred in his interpretation of the term "inventor". They held that the ordinary meaning of "inventor" under the Patents Act must be a natural person, and this interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and legislative intent. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's decision and reinstating the Deputy Commissioner's ruling that the patent application did not comply with the Patents Regulations because DABUS was not a natural person. Consequently, the patent application lapsed. The Court of Appeal did not order costs for either party.