Remove 2012 Remove Invention Remove Inventor Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

A present assignment of future continuation applications

Patently-O

While most of patents are attributable to both joint-inventors, some are only attributable to one or the other. Ownership Rights : Roku argued Universal lacked ownership rights to assert the ‘196 patent because when Universal filed its ITC complaint, it had recently filed a petition to correct inventorship to add a Universal employee.

article thumbnail

“Shall be the Property” is not an Assignment of Patent Rights

Patently-O

Back in 2012 though he took an unpaid leave-of-absence to start a LASER company. UM did not file any paperwork with the PTO attempting to claim ownership and UM is not a party to the present litigation. Both the district court and appellate court agreed that the agreement was not a present assignment of future inventions.

Patent 99
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

A Brief Thematic Review of Non-Fungible Tokens and their Copyright

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction Intellectual property entails the protection of legal rights for inventions and creations made by individuals or businesses using their minds. Copyrights safeguard the artists’ rights in the inventive and imaginative content that abounds in digital media. These advantages can be made profitable for the owner.

article thumbnail

National Intellectual Property Rights Conference 2023 – Day 1

Intepat

The extensive spectrum of discussions included diverse facets, from intellectual property filings to inventions, and ventured into the complex realms of legality, ethics, and geopolitics. He underlined that intellectual property is about more than simply production; it is also about solving social concerns with inventive solutions.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

Both suits were filed before the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act. Further, given that the 2012 amendment does not have a retrospective effect, the Court held that the amendment has no effect on the legal position. Recognition of non-human inventors, AI and its implications for India.

IP 136
article thumbnail

The US’ Review of March-in Rights, and Some Questions on an Indian Counterpart

SpicyIP

March-in rights are provisions that allow the government to require a license for inventions stemming from this investment, upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. The purpose of this right is to enable the government to fully realise the potential of the public-funded IPR in question if it is being underutilised by the inventor institute.