Who is an inventor?
Overview
- The appellant argues that the machine alone was the inventor of the inventions underlying the patent applications.
Despite its centrality, the term "inventor" is not defined in the Patent Law. Can the term "inventor" for the purposes of the law include a machine, which is not a human being? For the purposes of the law, can a machine be considered an inventor and not just an auxiliary of an inventor?
- The interpretation of Israeli legislation has been done for years on the basis of the theory of purposive interpretation. "A law must be interpreted in accordance with its language and purpose; Interpretation must be feasible in terms of the language of the legislation and optimally realize its purpose."High Court of Justice 244/23 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Israel Police (December 14, 2025), section 18). There are differences in shades and emphases in the application of the theory of interpretation in case law (for example: Additional Administrative Hearing 5331/24 Population and Immigration Authority v. KalmanT (7.12.2025) (Interest Clement); Criminal Appeal Authority 2384/24 Sharitach v. State of Israel (3.4.2025); High Court of Justice 5158/21 Gortler v. Minister of Welfare (28.12.2023) (Interest Gortler), section 18).
"The starting point of the purposive interpretation is an examination of the language of the law, and within the scope of possible interpretations, only interpretations that are anchored in the language of the law (even if there is minimal anchoring). From among the possible interpretations, we must choose the one that realizes the purposes of the law" (Application for Administrative Appeal 4413/23 State of Israel Tax Authority v. Neumann (November 4, 2025) (Neumann case), section 42 and the references cited therein, including the well-known and guiding judgment in this matter: Civil Appeal 165/82 Kibbutz Hazor v. Rehovot Tax Assessor, IsrSC 39(2) 70 (May 6, 1985)).
"The starting point in the work of interpreting a piece of legislation is in its language, when the law must be interpreted only in the interpretation that the language of the law can "carry." When language can bear more than one interpretation, a range of possible interpretations is created between which the interpreter is required to decide. For this purpose, he must examine the purpose of the legislation and choose the interpretation that best fulfills the purpose that was found" (Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 816/23 Petah Tikva Municipality v. Interponet Systems 2004 in Tax Appeal (January 1, 2025) (Petah Tikva Municipality case), section 29).