It is also not clear why defining a machine as an inventor is a suitable way to justify the incentive to which one aspires (especially since such a definition may have other consequences; pp. 12, 12-15, pp. 30, 23-24), even in an attempt to make adjustments by interpreting existing legislation, as opposed to appealing to the legislature.
- The course of action chosen by the appellant does not lead to a discussion of the question of the level of human involvement, if any, required for a person to be considered the inventor of "an invention made with the assistance of a machine" (paragraph 78 of the decision, paragraph 24 of the appeal)[7]. The Registrar clarified that he did not deal with this question. There is no basis for the questions raised in the appeal (section 24) as to the presumed intention of the Registrar in stating that the question was not required. The argument that the Registrar erred when he did not deal with the matter should not be accepted. Given that the appellant insisted that there was no human involvement in the inventions, it is clear that there was no need, and perhaps there was no place, to conduct a theoretical or principled discussion of the issue that did not arise.
- In addition, this is not a case in which an examination of "other pieces of legislation found in the legal 'environment' of the law, including those enacted after its enactment, and the manner in which they are interpreted by the court" shows "conceptual changes that have occurred in the law and in law since the enactment of the law, which have implications for its interpretation" (Matter Gortler, paragraph 5 of the judgment of Justice Kanfi-Steinitz). In contrast to the cases discussed in the case law, at this time it seems that interpretation in the requested format will not contribute to legislative harmony and may even disrupt it (compare: Matter Gortler, paragraphs 34 and 39 of the judgment of the Acting President Justice Vogelman).
- In this context, it is also possible to mention the international context to which the Registrar is required. The appellant himself notes that in intellectual property law there is significance to harmonization from the global perspective (pp. 50, 13-16). Patent Law Enacted with the declared intention of bringing Israel into a framework of patent protection that is in line with the Convention and International Doctrines (Yonatan Drori Patent Law (2023), p. 9; Explanatory Notes to the Patent Bill, 5725-1965 H.H. 637, 119). The trend to deepen the coordination between Israeli patent law and international frameworks for regulating patent law has continued to be expressed, inter alia, in legislation and subordinate legislation over the years (see, for example, the explanatory notes to the Proposed Law to Amend Intellectual Property Law – Conformity with the Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, 5759-1999, H.H. 2819, 524).
- In the case of the appellant, Dr. Thaler, there is no difficulty in ascertaining the state of the law elsewhere, since similar motions have been filed around the world. The Registrar's decision reviewed the main reasons for decisions made in the United States, England, and the European Patent Office (EPO, Australia and Germany, and it was noted that In most cases, the applications were rejected on the grounds that the law requires that the inventor be a human being or that the appellant does not have the right to file a patent application.
The following is a summary of the situation described and updates regarding developments following the Registrar's decision.
- USA - U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) dismissed an appeal of the Virginia District Court's decision (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) to reject an appeal against the refusal of the patent office (USPTO) to register Dr. Thaler's patent applications[8]. It was held that the law should be understood as relating to a "human person only" and that inventions made by a machine should not be accepted for registration.
A petition for a writ of certiorati to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied (after the decision of the Registrar is the subject of the appeal herein).[9]