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.

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 125
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

Delhi High Court Directs Maharaja to Pay a King’s Ransom in a Patent Infringement Suit  

SpicyIP

Regarding the third prior art document (EP0469758), the court held that though the result of the invention cited in the third prior art document and the suit patent is the same i.e. cutting of the heating of the vessels, the mechanism adopted by the inventions are different.

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 80
article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: What Every Patent and Trademark lawyer Should Understand About the MPEP, TMEP, and Other Guidance

Patently-O

Cotter, Is Global FRAND Litigation Spinning Out of Control , 2021 PatentlyO Law Journal 1 (2021) ( Cotter.2021.GlobalFRANDLitigation Lemley, Erik Oliver, Kent Richardson, James Yoon, & Michael Costa, Patent Purchases and Litigation Outcomes , 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 15 ( Lemley.2016.PatentMarket COVID-19Impact).