Remove 2005 Remove Invention Remove Patent Application
article thumbnail

When can/not a Patent Application be Divided? Part II: Claims & Pluralities

SpicyIP

This second part continues where that post left off, and brings us analysis on whether or not, for the purposes of maintaining a divisional application, there must be a plurality of inventions in the claims of the parent application. When can/not a Patent Application be Divided? Part II: Claims & Pluralities.

article thumbnail

Cross-Border Inventing

Patently-O

The chart below highlights an important trend in patenting: increased joint-inventorship where the inventors reside in different countries. The top (blue-circle) series looks generally at cross-border joint-inventing while the lower (orange-square) series reports a subset where at least one of the inventors has a US residence.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Guest Post: DABUS Gains Traction: South Africa Becomes First Country to Recognize AI-Invented Patent

Patently-O

Ryan Abbott, have made headlines around the world as they sought patent protection for a fractal-inspired beverage container (shown below) that they contend was invented by DABUS. Each of these three jurisdictions found sufficient reasons in these formalities to reject DABUS’ patent applications. Stephen Thaler and Prof.

Invention 128
article thumbnail

Challenges of Proving Inventorship: Corroboration of All Inventive Facts

Patently-O

2023) The case involving Medtronic and Teleflex centered on five patents related to a coaxial guide catheter used in interventional cardiology procedures. In an attempt to invalidate these patents, Medtronic launched a succession of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions. Patent 7,736,355 (“Itou”) could be regarded as prior art.

article thumbnail

The Curious Question of Who Is An “Any Person” Part 1: BHC and Diluting of Pre-Grant Oppositions

SpicyIP

A recent order by the Delhi High Court in the case of Agriboard International Llc vs Deputy Controller Of Patents brought up the very relevant issue of the requirement of the Patent office to issue “speaking orders” while rejecting a patent application. Widened Locus Standi. Cipla Ltd & Ors.

article thumbnail

“Right to Access a Public Record” vs “Right to not Communicate the Work”: Where is Public Interest?”

SpicyIP

In Rajeev Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia (12th April 2021), an extremely interesting tussle was seen with the copyright over a thesis being pitted against a person’s right to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 12 ) or anywhere else, because granting of patents necessarily includes publication of invention.

article thumbnail

Laundry Lists of Components are Insufficient Written Description for a Particular Combination

Patently-O

patents assert priority to at least one prior patent application filing. In addition to the formal paperwork, the original application must sufficiently disclose the invention as claimed in the later patent. A patent that improperly claims priority is not automatically invalid. . = = = Most U.S.

Invention 118