Remove 2002 Remove Intellectual Property Law Remove Patent
article thumbnail

Intersection of Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law with respect to Cross Licensing Agreements

IIPRD

However, the population and their necessities as well as demands have increased manifold which has culminated into a need to regularize invention by bilateral or multilateral collaborations in order to drive innovation and help the masses in increasing their access to latest technological developments along with preventing monopolization of patents.

article thumbnail

Artificial Intelligence And Subject Matter Eligibility In U.S. Patent Office Appeals – Part Two Of Three

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Artificial intelligence is changing industry and society, and metrics at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reflect its impact. In a recent publication, the USPTO indicated that from 2002 to 2018 the share of all patent applications relating to artificial intelligence grew from 9% to approximately 16%. See Alice Corp.

Patent 212
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

The IPKat

A Kat awaiting weekly IP updates Designs Katfriend Henning Hartwig reviewed the interpretation of Articles 6 and 14 of Regulation 6/2002 (CDR). Marcel Pemsel analysed two recent decisions from the General Court and the German Patent Court concerning applications for invalidity of an (almost) identical EU trade mark, Sophienwald.

article thumbnail

Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law: Conflicting or Complementing

IIPRD

Introduction If we take a broader look at the Intellectual Property Laws, the primary objective of the legislation in framing these laws is to provide exclusive rights to the IP right holder as against the entire world. In contrast, the CCI has the authority to decide upon all the happenings in the market.

article thumbnail

Artificial Intelligence And Subject Matter Eligibility In U.S. Patent Office Appeals – Part Three Of Three

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Artificial intelligence is changing industry and society, and metrics at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reflect its impact. In a recent publication, the USPTO indicated that from 2002 to 2018 the share of all patent applications relating to artificial intelligence grew from 9% to approximately 16%. See Alice Corp.

Patent 189
article thumbnail

Innovating the Term ‘Inventor’: AI and Patent Law

IPilogue

Recently, AI technology once again exceeded the legal community’s expectations by filing a patent for its invention of interlocking food containers. Under patent law, it is the general expectation that inventors are humans, not robots. Europe, Australia, and South Africa, only Australia and South Africa granted this patent.

Inventor 105
article thumbnail

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2022-1147 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)

Intellectual Property Law Blog

This case is an appellate review of the district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date. Amgen also owns three patents — the ’638, ’101, and ’541 patents — covering Otezla. Issues Is the ’638 patent invalid as obvious given objective indicia of non-obviousness? Both Amgen and Sandoz appealed.

Art 130