The appellant did not refer to the rule according to which the granting of a right should be preferred when it is verbally possible, and we will remember that in the case of the right in question, it means granting a kind of monopoly for a certain period. The argument raised can even act as a double-edged sword: since recognition of a patent restricts and prohibits the public from making free use for a certain period of time, it can be argued that to the extent that the law can be interpreted in a way that does not restrict the public, this should be preferred (without referring to the possibility of granting relief under other laws, the laws of enrichment in particular).
Who is an inventor - summary and notes
- The natural and ordinary interpretation of the term "inventor" as of today does not include the term "inventor" within its definition. Even if such a reading is possible on a literal level, it is not a routine reading. Reading the term in its context inPatent Law This makes this possibility even more difficult, and some would argue that it is avoided. It has not been established that the purposes of the law call for the interpretation requested by the appellant or that other considerations justify it. In the circumstances of the case, there is no room to intervene in the Registrar's decision that a machine cannot be considered an inventor under the Patent Law and that the patent applications will be denied.
Applications Filed in the Appeal Procedure
- An application to join the proceeding was filed in the appeal as an 'amicus curiae' on behalf of the Shalom Institute for Comparative Research from the Eliyahu Center for Law and Technology at Ono Academic College (The Institute), by the head of the Institute, Prof. Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid.
In the notice of appeal it was possible to find a sign of things to come, since it was written that the appellant "would not object" to the joining of organizations and representatives of academia in the proceeding as amicus curiae (paragraph 18 of the notice of appeal).
- In the application to join, it was claimed that the Institute is a non-profit academic body that, by virtue of its purposes and objectives relating to the promotion of innovation in general and the promotion of the proper interface between technology and law in particular, and in light of its expertise, represents the public interest in promoting a technology-based economy. According to the Institute, it has the ability to enlighten the court and the Registrar of Patents with regard to additional and broad aspects of the circumstances of the proceeding.
- The criteria for joining a party in the status of an amicus curiae were discussed in a decision given in a retrial 7929/96 Kozli v. State of Israel, IsrSC 55(1) 529 (February 16, 1999) (Matter Kozli) which the halakha began with the matter (High Court of Justice 70854-03-25 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Knesset (27.10.2025)).
- As emerged from the application and approved at the hearing, the head of the Institute is a partner in the international project in which the patent applications were filed, a project led by Prof. Ryan Abbott (University of Surrey). Prof. Abbott himself, together with a number of other parties, joined the interview that took place regarding the patent applications with the appellant's representative and at his request (paragraph 2.6 of the refusal letter). Every position on behalf of the Institute and the project was or could have been included in the appellant's arguments before the Registrar and in his arguments in the framework of the appeal.
In the circumstances of the case, and although it is not necessary for the joining body to be neutral and objective, it is difficult to relate to the applicant as a third party "not involved" in the proceeding and who did not have "representation and an opening of his mouth" (the Kozli case, paragraph 42), and to view his position as an addition to the position of a party. In addition, from the outset, this is a project of researchers, so this is not a case in which an academic institution comes to add to a perspective that "stems from narrow commercial and economic interests" (pp. 7, 26-27). There was no justification for granting the request.