Only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of Sec. 37(1) of the Patent Act. There is no room for a further development of the law by judges with the aim of being able to designate an artificial intelligence (AI) as inventor as well, because there is no gap in the legal framework. The rule in Sec. 37(1) of the Patent Act is aimed at the recognition of the “inventor doctrine”, which precisely does not apply to an AI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Change history
14 November 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01267-7
Notes
Editor’s note: In the original decision, the names of “S. Thaler” and “DABUS” are omitted throughout the text. To aid with readability, we have added them in this translation.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Official headnote. Translated from the German by Allison Felmy.
For more on this topic see the decision “Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler (DABUS)” by the Full Federal Court of Australia in this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01224-4.
The original online version of this article was revised
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patent Act, Secs. 6, 37, 42, 124; Patent Ordinance, Secs. 7, 10(2). “Food Container (DABUS Germany)”. IIC 53, 1117–1122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01226-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01226-2