The European Patent Office (EPO), the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), and the USPTO recently refused patent applications in which a machine, “DABUS,” was designated as the inventor. The patents were refused primarily on the grounds that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine.
Lets turn to (Indian) Patents Act, 1970 –
(a) the phrase “inventor” is included in the definition of “true and first inventor” in the Patents Act, 1970 i.e. “true and first inventor” does not include either the first importer of an invention into India, or a person to whom an invention is first communicated from outside India. It may be noted that this definition does not clarify that an individual or a human being can only be an inventor.
(b) the Patents Act, 1970 provides that a patent application can be filed by a “person” claiming to be a true and first inventor. The term “person” as defined in the Patents Act, 1970 includes Government. Further, the term “person” as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Therefore, in absence of any strict requirement in the definition of “person” that means only an individual or human being, one can argue that an artificial person can also be an inventor.
Support authors and subscribe to content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
Recent Comments