Remove 2020 Remove Invention Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Guest Post: DABUS Gains Traction: South Africa Becomes First Country to Recognize AI-Invented Patent

Patently-O

Ryan Abbott, have made headlines around the world as they sought patent protection for a fractal-inspired beverage container (shown below) that they contend was invented by DABUS. Does substantive South African patent law preclude AI inventorship? Was granting the patent a mistake? Stephen Thaler and Prof.

Invention 128
article thumbnail

Stakeholders Should Not Miss Congress’s Invitation For Feedback On Patent Eligibility

Intellectual Property Law Blog

The Federal Circuit created controversy in 2020 over its application of the Supreme Court’s subject matter eligibility jurisprudence by finding a method of manufacturing an automobile propshaft ineligible for patent protection. patent law to accommodate and encourage technologies that will drive the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Inventor 189
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Patent Law Canons and Canards: Bonito Boats

Patently-O

For our patent law course today, the students read the Justice O’Connor unanimous opinion in Bonito Boats, Inc. The Florida courts had refused to enforce the law because it conflicted with Federal Patent Law. The Florida courts had refused to enforce the law because it conflicted with Federal Patent Law.

article thumbnail

He, She, or They in US Patent Law

Patently-O

When the Patent Act of 1790 refers to inventors, it lists gender inclusive forms of “he, she, or they:” [The inventor(s) must] set[] forth, that he, she, or they , hath or have invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein… Patent Act of 1790.

article thumbnail

AI Systems May Invent, But Are They Inventors?

The IP Law Blog

Arguably, an AI system, which is a non-human, can also create or invent. But can an AI system be a named inventor on a patent? While these systems may have been programmed and/or trained by a human, the human may not have actually invented the apparatus or method claimed in the patent application. Stephen L.

article thumbnail

Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

The Federal Circuit disagreed and noted that in any event, a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed (citing UCB, Inc. Actavis Laby’s UT, Inc. , 4th 679, 692 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Gold Standard test for novelty reigns supreme, even for subranges (T 1688/20)

The IPKat

The Board of Appeals approach leads them to accept both the novelty and inventive step of a subrange that is very close to that of the prior art, and which has an overlapping technical effect with that of the prior art. The claims were therefore found both novel and inventive.

Invention 140