President of the German Patent and Trademark Office v. Thaler
Germany Federal Court of Justice
June 11, 2024, AZ XZB 5/22 (2024)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Dr. Stephen Thaler (plaintiff) filed a German patent application for a new food-and-beverage container. On the associated designation-of-inventor form, Thaler listed DABUS, an artificial-intelligence (AI) platform, as the inventor because the platform designed the container at Thaler’s prompting. The German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) rejected the application on the basis that only a natural person could be named as an inventor. Thaler appealed that decision. As part of the appeal, Thaler made three alternative requests related to designation of the container’s inventor. The first request sought a declaration that no inventor designation was necessary. The second request proposed naming Thaler as the inventor with a supplemental description stating that the invention was created by AI called DABUS. The third request proposed naming Thaler as the inventor with the explanation that he prompted DABUS to create the invention. The president of the GPTO (president) (defendant) intervened in the appeal, arguing that none of the alternatives were acceptable. The patent court overturned the GPTO’s decision and referred the case back to the GPTO with instructions that the third alternative was an acceptable means of designating the container’s inventor. Thaler and the president both appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
