Remove 2008 Remove Contracts Remove Ownership Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Decoding Patent Ownership beginning with Core Principles

Patently-O

Core developed the patented invention “entirely on [his] own time” under his employment agreement. The majority opinion written by Judge Taranto and joined by Judge Dyk held the contract language was ambiguous on this point and remanded for further factual development to determine the parties’ intent.

article thumbnail

A present assignment of future continuation applications

Patently-O

The decision is lacking though because the court does not ground its decision in any particular contract or property tradition. Although it did not state directly, the court appears to have based its contract interpretation on federal patent law as it has done in prior cases. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 3d 1284 (Fed.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Navigating Challenges and Seizing Opportunities

IIPRD

IPR is the right for the ownership of the property which is not tangible and is the result of your intellect. Another question regarding AI-generated copyright work in India is, whether AI should be given ownership of the work or not. Patent law The term “inventor” is not explicitly defined in the Indian Patent Act 1970.

article thumbnail

ChatGPT and Intellectual Property (IP) related Topics

LexBlog IP

” Copyrights: Ownership and Use of ChatGPT output OpenAI does not address the question of copyright authorship. Instead, OpenAI treats the matter as one of ownership via contract law. No, according to various patent offices and patent laws around the world. For example, under U.S. See Thaler v.