Remove 2023 Remove Invention Remove Patent Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Supreme Court on Patent Law: November 2023

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court is set to consider several significant patent law petitions addressing a range of issues from the application of obviousness standards, challenges to PTAB procedures, interpretation of joinder time limits IPR, to the proper scope patent eligibility doctrine.

article thumbnail

UPC takes strong stance on therapeutic antibody inventions (Sanofi v Amgen, UPC_CFI_1/202)

The IPKat

The UPC Central Division also takes a strong stance on the patentability of therapeutic antibody inventions in Europe. The decision of the UPC confirms that the US and European approaches to antibody inventions are diametrically opposed. The decision is not just remarkable for being the first decision of its kind.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

Intellectual Property Law Blog

16, 2023) , the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the claims in the challenged patents unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the asserted prior art. Patent Nos. In Incept v. 6,624,245 to Wallace et al.

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court Confirms No Patent for “AI-invented” Inventions

SpicyIP

[ On December 20, the UK Supreme Court affirmed its previous decision to deny registration to inventions by Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI DABUS, holding that an AI software cannot be listed as an inventor. student at National Law University, Delhi. SpicyIP intern Vedika discusses this development. Vedika is a third-year B.A.LL.B.

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court Rules that AI cannot be an ‘Inventor’ Under UK Patent Law

JD Supra Law

In Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49, the UK Supreme Court ruled that AI cannot be an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of UK patent law.

article thumbnail

New Era of China Patent Law

LexBlog IP

This change represents a considerable shift in the intellectual property law landscape within the country, aiming to promote an environment of genuine innovation and integrity. Genuine Inventive Activities: Requires applications to be based on real and original inventive activities.

article thumbnail

Thaler v. Comptroller-General: Supreme Court Affirms that an AI Cannot be an Inventor under UK Patent Law

Intepat

Registration at UKIPO The case in question, originating in 2019, presents a groundbreaking legal dilemma: Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be acknowledged as an inventor for the purposes of patent ownership? At the heart of this case lies a critical examination of the UK Patent Act 1977, specifically Section 13(2).