Remove 2007 Remove Invention Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: The AIA at Ten – How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?

Patently-O

As the America Invents Act (AIA) turns 10, patent students across the country may be asking: if the law is already a decade old, why am I spending so much time learning pre-AIA law? We address these questions empirically by analyzing the effective dates of patents and patent applications currently being litigated or pursued.

Art 126
article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The Board of Appeal in T 2803/18 , in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: The AIA at Ten – How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?

Patently-O

As the America Invents Act (AIA) turns 10, patent students across the country may be asking: if the law is already a decade old, why am I spending so much time learning pre-AIA law? We address these questions empirically by analyzing the effective dates of patents and patent applications currently being litigated or pursued.

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? In 2007, as part of Hormel’s quest to improve its process for creating precooked bacon pieces, Hormel met with David Howard and others from Unitherm to discuss processes and Unitherm’s cooking equipment. The court in Pannu v.

Inventor 110
article thumbnail

Gone Up In Smoke: Analysing the Controller’s Rejection of an E-cigarette Patent under Section 3(b)

SpicyIP

The rejection had been based on the invention being “contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment” under Section 3(b) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. Understanding Why the Patent Application Went Up in Flames The patent application (no. Mitra And Co.

Invention 109
article thumbnail

Top 10 Patent Cases: 1891 to 1951

Patently-O

Teleflex (2007). In this case, the court explained that the inequitable conduct (unclean hands) only applies when the unconscionable act has “immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks in respect of the matter in litigation.” ” Great Atlantic & Pac. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 147 (1950).

Patent 131
article thumbnail

Vanda Seeks Supreme Court Review on Lower Standard for Obviousness

Patently-O

398 (2007). KSR ‘s language is built on longstanding precedent that an invention cannot be considered obvious if, at the time it was made, it would not have been “perfectly plain” or “immediately recognizable” to one skilled in the art. The Supreme Court has not addressed obviousness standards since its 2007 decision in KSR.

Art 81