“Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler (DABUS)”Decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia 13 April 2022 – Case No. [2022] FCAFC 62

Although not defined in the Patents Act, the term “inventor” in 15(1) plainly enough is a reference to the inventor of the invention the subject of the patent application. “Inventor” has long been held to bear its ordinary English meaning, being the person(s) responsible for making the invention, namely, “the person who makes or devises the process or product”.The inventor for the purposes of Sec. 15(1)(a) is the person who is responsible for the “inventive concept”. Such an inventor is the person, or one of the people, who materially contributes to the inventive concept as described in the specification and the subject of the claims.The law relating to the entitlement of a person to the grant of a patent is premised upon an invention for the purposes of the Patents Act arising from the mind of a natural person or persons. Those who contribute to, or supply, the inventive concept are entitled to the grant. The grant of a patent for an invention rewards their ingenuity.Where Sec. 15(1)(a) provides that a patent for an invention may only be granted to “a person who is an inventor”, the reference to “a person” emphasises, in context, that this is a natural person.Each of Secs. 15(1)(b), (c) and (d) provide for circumstances where a person becomes entitled to the grant of a patent by ultimately receiving that entitlement from the inventor in Sec. 15(1)(a). For this there must be a legal relationship between the actual inventor and the person first entitled to the grant.Under Sec. 15(1)(b), the person claims through the inventor of Sec. 15(1)(a) by way of assignment. Something without a legal identity cannot give effect to an assignment.