Thaler v Commissioner of Patents

The applicant, Dr. Stephen Thaler, sought to have an invention patented, listing himself as the inventor. The Commissioner of Patents refused to grant the patent on the basis that the inventor must be a natural person. Dr. Thaler appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before Gleeson J was whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system, specifically a device named DABUS, could be considered an "inventor" for the purposes of the *Patents Act 1990* (Cth). This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "inventor" within the statutory framework of Australian patent law.

Gleeson J reasoned that the *Patents Act* defines an inventor as a person who invents. The ordinary meaning of "person" in Australian law, particularly in legislation, refers to a natural person. While the Act does not explicitly exclude non-natural persons, the consistent use of "person" and "individual" throughout the *Patents Act* and related legislation, as well as established legal principles, indicated that an inventor must be a natural person. The Court found no basis to depart from this ordinary meaning, nor did it find that the Act contemplated or provided for the inventorship of an AI.

Consequently, Gleeson J dismissed the application, upholding the Commissioner's decision that DABUS, as an AI, could not be recognised as an inventor under the *Patents Act 1990* (Cth).