2014 Invention Ownership 
IP Intelligence
APRIL 24, 2023
Combine that “mastermind/dominant” author doctrine with the run of cases discussing ownership of software outputs (i.e., Copyright Office (the Office) when it comes to copyright ownership of artificial intelligence (AI) output. the “lion’s share” cases), and we see that the notion of what an “author” even is is highly nuanced.
Patently-O
AUGUST 26, 2022
The basis for the argument was that the application that led to the patent-in-suit had been filed while Afana had been married (to Kassam) and, by operation of Texas’ community property law, Kassam had an ownership interest in the issued patent that had not been assigned to Mobile Equity and had not been joined as a co-plaintiff.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
More Than Your Mark
AUGUST 20, 2021
the past decade, the use of 3-D printing has expanded rapidly, in part because the original intellectual property protections on the technology, first invented in the 1980s, expired, making it less expensive to produce the hardware and software involved in the 3-D printing process. An example of this is a 2014 initiative by Hasbro, Inc. ,
LexBlog IP
APRIL 24, 2023
Combine that “mastermind/dominant” author doctrine with the run of cases discussing ownership of software outputs (i.e., Copyright Office (the Office) when it comes to copyright ownership of artificial intelligence (AI) output. The Office has answered that question with a resounding “maybe.” ” U.S.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MAY 15, 2024
1962 (2014). 2014) (collecting cases). at 1-2] At its heart, therefore, this case is a dispute about copyright ownership. The plaintiffs responded by moving for partial summary judgment on the issue of ownership, based on the presumption of validity that attaches to timely copyright registrations. 663, 134 S. at *13-*16.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 30, 2021
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that California Civil Code section 980(a)(2) , which grants “exclusive ownership” of a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, to its “author,” provides only an exclusive right of reproduction and distribution, and does not provide an exclusive right of public performance. 17-55844 (9th Cir.
CopyrightsWorld
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
This article is part of our series showcasing well-known copyright ownership cases from the music and film industries, technology, and more. This week’s post looks at three well-known copyright infringement cases involving tech giants battling each other over ownership rights. Apple vs. Microsoft.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content