“Thaler v. Comptroller”

• 1. An inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person. A machine (here: DABUS) is not a person at all, let alone a natural person.

• 2. A patent may be granted only to a person falling in one of the three categories of persons set out in Sec. 7(2): The inventor (Sec. 7(2)(a)), a person or persons mentioned in Sec. 7(2)(b), in preference to the inventor, or to the successor or successors in title of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) (Sec. 7(2)(c)). All must be persons with legal personality, although not necessarily natural persons (for example, a corporate employer).

• 3. The presumption arising from Sec. 7(4) is consistent with this approach. It says that a person who makes an application for a patent shall be taken to be the person who is entitled under subsection (2) to be granted a patent. This presumption can be rebutted, but only if it is shown that some other person is entitled to it. A machine is not a person and so cannot qualify under Secs. 7(4) or 7(2).

• 4. Section 7 does not confer on any person a right to obtain a patent for any new product or process created or generated autonomously by a machine (here: DABUS), let alone a person who claims that right purely on the basis of ownership of the machine.

• 5. The doctrine of accession does not, as a matter of law, operate to confer on a person (here: Dr. Thaler) the property in or the right to apply for and obtain a patent for any technical development made by a machine owned by him/her (here: DABUS).

• 6. If an applicant fails within the relevant period to file with the UKIPO a statement identifying the person or persons whom he believes to be the inventor or inventors; and where (as here) the applicant is not the inventor, indicating the derivation of his right to be granted the patent, the inevitable consequence prescribed by Sec. 13(2) is that the applications must be taken to have been withdrawn.