An engineer discovers that an Israeli patent application filed by a former employer describes a solution the engineer helped devise, but does not identify the engineer as an inventor. The company may accept that the individual made an important technical contribution while maintaining that the contribution concerned implementation rather than conception of the invention. Israeli patent law provides a specific procedure to resolve the right to be named as an inventor, even where patent ownership is not disputed.
Sections 39–43 of Israel’s Patents Law, 5727-1967, and Regulations 78–84 of the Patents Regulations establish the relevant procedure before the Israeli Registrar of Patents. It concerns inventorship attribution, not an automatic entitlement to patent ownership, employee royalties or cancellation of the patent. For international companies filing in Israel, these distinctions matter when assembling worldwide inventor declarations and reconciling disputes among researchers.
Who Has the Right to Be Named as an Inventor in Israel?
Section 39 gives an inventor, and certain successors, the right to demand that the inventor’s name appear in the patent specification, register and certificate, in accordance with the applicable statutory rules. The request may be made even where a company owns the invention by virtue of employment or an assignment agreement.
Section 42 provides that an inventor’s undertaking to waive the right to demand identification is ineffective. A clause assigning all intellectual property to the employer is therefore not the same as a waiver of proper inventor attribution. Conversely, Section 43 expressly states that being named as inventor does not, merely by virtue of that fact, confer ownership of the invention or the patent.
The result is entirely possible: a company owns the patent, while a former employee whose contribution satisfies the inventorship test is entitled to be named. Neither party should frame the names procedure as if it necessarily determined the other party’s proprietary position.
What Counts as an Inventive Contribution?
The question is who contributed to the conception of the invention protected by the relevant patent claims, rather than simply who worked hard on a project. Building prototypes, conducting tests, supervising staff or funding development may be valuable without establishing contribution to the inventive solution itself.
In Shahal Telemedicine v. Oren, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Appeal 49328-10-10 (7 November 2011), the dispute concerned a vacuum-assisted blood sampling device. Although Oren contributed significant engineering work to developing the apparatus, the District Court accepted the company’s appeal because his contribution to conceiving the claimed inventive arrangement had not been established.
This is not a test of job title, time spent or business importance. A narrowly defined but genuinely inventive contribution may count, while months of implementing an idea already conceived may not. The actual claims, technical history and chronology of contributions are central.
How Is an Inventor-Name Request Filed?
Regulation 78 requires a written application to the Israel Patent Office. The Office’s inventor registration and removal service explains administrative procedures, including how an inventor who is not the patent applicant may request addition of a name without the registered owner’s prior consent. In that situation, the owner has an opportunity to respond.
The request should identify the application or patent, the relevant invention and the particular technical contribution relied upon. Useful documents may include dated research notes, early design drawings, technical drafts, software versions, experimental records, invention disclosures and correspondence showing when the claimed solution was devised.
A generic assertion that the applicant was “part of the development team” will rarely answer the essential question. Likewise, a dispute about pay or equity in the company does not establish who actually conceived the invention.
Can an Inventor Be Added After Patent Grant?
A dispute about inventorship may arise during patent prosecution or after the patent has been granted. Regulation 79 distinguishes recording the name in the register from adding it to the issued patent certificate: where the demand was made by the end of one month following publication of acceptance, the name is to be included in the certificate as well.
The stage of proceedings and the publication date therefore matter. The possibility of raising inventorship later should not be confused with identical correction rights for all documents at all times. International filing teams should address disputed names before grant where the underlying facts can reasonably be clarified.
What Happens if the Patent Owner Objects?
Section 40 requires the Registrar to notify the proprietor of a demand for inventor attribution made by someone without ownership of the invention or patent. Where a patent opposition under Section 30 is pending, the other parties to that proceeding must also receive notice under the statutory conditions.
Regulation 81 generally gives the notified party one month from service of the notice to object. This is not the standard patent-opposition period and does not run from the date the patent application was filed.
Under Regulation 82, the procedure following an objection borrows the procedural framework applicable to opposition against patent grant. The party demanding attribution is treated as the applicant, and the party opposing the demand is treated as the opponent. Other notified parties may be joined as respondents according to the regulations.
Both sides should be prepared to explain the development sequence, distinguish inventive conception from implementation and connect their evidence to the features of the patent claims.
When Does an Inventorship Dispute Become an Ownership Dispute?
Section 41 limits the inventor-naming procedure. The Registrar will not consider the matter under that route where the real dispute should instead be examined as an assertion that the opponent is the true owner under Section 31(3), or through an appropriate proceeding under Section 73.
Regulations 83–84 establish a mechanism for redirecting the dispute. If the Registrar concludes, after the pleadings, that the appropriate route is opposition or cancellation, the parties must receive a reasoned written notice. The inventor-name applicant may ask, within one month of that notice, to have the demand treated as an opposition or cancellation application, subject to the prescribed fee.
Thus a request nominally seeking “correction of inventors” should not be used to obtain transfer of the patent without satisfying the requirements of an ownership claim. An employment-related disagreement about whether an invention is a service invention raises still another route under Section 133. See Employee Service-Invention Ownership Disputes in Israel.
Can a Name Be Removed from the Inventor List?
The Israel Patent Office also provides a process concerning removal of an inventor’s name. Its published administrative requirements contemplate a document reflecting the affected person’s consent to removal. Where the inventor disputes whether the name was properly included, a consensual administrative removal should not be presumed available.
A former employee does not cease to be an inventor by leaving the company, and assignment of patent rights does not itself justify deleting the inventor’s name. The factual question remains the contribution to the invention as claimed.
Inventor Declarations and the Duty to Cooperate with Patent Filing
In Biona v. Taborovsky (13 June 2012), a former employee refused to sign patent documents because the employee asserted that another person had improperly been included as an inventor. The Regional Labor Court rejected the particular factual allegation and ordered signature under the circumstances established.
The decision does not authorize an employer to compel a knowingly false declaration. It demonstrates why contractual duties to cooperate with patent filings and questions about the truth of inventorship statements must be considered together rather than treated as identical issues.
Inventorship and AI-Assisted Inventions
The separate question whether an artificial intelligence system itself can be designated as an inventor was addressed in Thaler v. Registrar of Patents, an Israeli District Court decision in 2025 concerning the DABUS applications. The court concluded that the existing Patents Law could not be interpreted as recognizing the AI system itself as an inventor. It did not conclusively determine the level of human involvement required for every invention developed with AI assistance.
That issue should not be conflated with an ordinary dispute among human engineers and researchers over which person made the inventive contribution.
Evidence and Strategy for International Patent Applicants
For patents arising from multinational research teams, an invention disclosure and a current claim-by-claim analysis may identify disputes earlier than formal inventor declarations alone. Preserve dated engineering files, patent drafts and correspondence showing the actual origin of claimed features.
The Israeli procedure should also be coordinated with any ongoing foreign proceedings. Inventorship requirements and the consequences of errors can differ between jurisdictions, and amendment in one country does not by itself establish how the Israeli register must be corrected.
The governing provisions are Sections 39–43 of the Patents Law and Regulations 78–84 of the Patents Regulations. For further discussion see Yonatan Drori, Patent Law (Hebrew, 2023), Section 11.1.5, and Patent Litigation in Israel. For related financial rights, see Employee Service-Invention Remuneration and Royalties.
