Question 1
The goal of patent law is to encourage creative problem-solving by giving creators the
first and only opportunity to commercialize their innovations. Inventorship is a cornerstone of
patent law since it establishes who can take credit for innovation and file a patent application.
The Patents Act 1990 (Cth) establishes the rules for determining who is considered an inventor
in Australia. According to Section 15 of the Act, an inventor is anybody who "contributed to the
inventive concept," or the idea that distinguishes the claimed invention as novel and original
(Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co, 1990). Innovative thought is also part of the
innovation that addresses the technological issue. Therefore, determining who invented anything
requires determining who contributed the most to the idea. Elodie is considered the originator of
the Water-Filled Glass system since it was her idea to utilize water in the window to absorb heat.
Given her involvement in the creation process, the question is then raised whether MUGUS, her
artificial intelligence helper, may also be regarded as an inventor. (Get help with your
Coursework from Cheap Coursework Writing Services)
Elodie could only have created the drawings and printed the 3D version of the window
with the help of MUGUS, an artificial intelligence assistant. But it didn't help with the novel idea
of putting water in the pane of glass. That rules out MUGUS as a creative force. In addition to
Elodie, her MFA and UES team members who contributed significantly to the original concept
might be named inventors. In this particular instance, however, Elodie's MFA team members did
not aid in developing the original idea for the Water-Filled Glass method. Elodie's UES pupils
are similarly disqualified as innovators because they have yet to offer feedback on the concept.
Elodie was the only one who significantly contributed to the Water-Filled Glass system, so she
2
deserves credit as its only creator. Elodie has the exclusive legal right to apply for a patent on the
innovation and assert ownership of it.
Protecting intellectual property and encouraging innovation requires an appreciation for
the nature of inventorship. Inventor disputes can emerge when two or more people work together
on an idea but disagree on its scope or who should receive credit for the creation. Disputes over
inventorship are often contentious and expensive to resolve in court. Therefore, it is crucial to
create clear inventorship at the commencement of development to avoid such disagreements. It is
also important to note who had a hand in developing the innovative idea and how it helped.
Inventorship is also important since it establishes who has the legal standing to sell licenses,
litigate for patent infringement, and collect royalties. Inventors, financiers, and firms looking to
bring innovative technology to market must therefore have a firm grasp of inventorship. A
patent's legitimacy may also be affected by questions of authorship. Incorrect identification of
the inventor could result in the invalidation of the patent and the related loss of protection and
privileges. When there are several people who contributed to an idea, determining who should
get credit for it can become a sticky matter. In such situations, figuring out who did what for the
invention is crucial.
Question 2
The person or persons who have acquired the rights to the invention from the inventor are
the "owner" of the patent under the Patents Act 1990. If the employee's idea was developed
while working for the company, however, the company itself may be regarded as the patent
owner. Elodie, an architect by trade, came up with the idea for the Water-Filled Glass system
while working for MFA, a firm where she is a senior architect on specific projects linked to the
environmentally friendly heating and cooling of cutting-edge glass skyscrapers. Therefore,
3
Elodie most likely developed the Water-Filled Glass technique while working for MFA. Unless
otherwise agreed upon, an employee's employer is the legal owner of any patent created by the
employee during employment under section 15(2) of the (Act Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin
Engineering Co 1990). If the Water-Filled Glass system is ever copyrighted, MFA might lay
claim to it. Suppose Elodie can prove that she independently developed the Water-Filled Glass
mechanism. In that case, she may assert ownership of the patent and prevent MFA from claiming
credit for it.
Elodie conceived the idea in her spare time at home, employing an artificial intelligence
tool called MUGUS, access to which is licensed to MFA for use in development projects. Since
Elodie's idea was conceived outside of her work with MFA, she may be able to argue that the
company has no right to the patent. Since the invention was made while the University of
Western Australia did not employ Gray, the court concluded that Gray, and not the university,
should be the patent's owner. Therefore, Elodie may claim ownership of the patent if she can
demonstrate that she invented the Water-Filled Glass system outside of her job with MFA. If
Elodie came up with the idea for the Water-Filled Glass system while working for MFA or
independently, then MFA or Elodie would be the rightful patent owner. If the invention was
made while she worked at MFA, the company might claim the patent. However, Elodie may
claim ownership of the patent if she can prove that she originated the idea outside her position
with MFA.