article thumbnail

The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)

The IPKat

The recent case T 2510/18 considered whether an invention derived from traditional remedies by dishonest means was immoral. The objections related not to the direct exploitation of the invention itself, but to the alleged dishonesty and breach of trust associated with how the invention was derived.

Invention 113
article thumbnail

Excluding a technical feature is not inventive without evidence of a technical effect (T 1865/22)

The IPKat

The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1865/22 considered the inventive step of a composition where the only distinguishing feature was a lower concentration of a component compared to the closest prior art. The prior art taught that higher concentrations of this component were advantageous.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

G 2/21 applied to software inventions (T 0687/22)

The IPKat

The EPO Board of Appeal decision in T 0687/22 confirms beyond doubt the relevance of G 2/21 to software inventions. The decision in T 0687/22 links the case law from G 1/19 and G 2/21 to highlight t he importance of establishing a credible technical effect of software invention. Headnote II).

article thumbnail

Logical Fallacy in Patent Law: Analysing Abolkheir’s Challenge to the Soundness of Non-obviousness Test

SpicyIP

In his recent work published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice , Dr. Mo Abolkheir argues that the prevailing interpretation of ‘inventive steps’ places emphasis on the inventor’s imaginative capacity rather than the invention itself. It confuses ‘invention’ with ‘person.’ Cipla Ltd. ,

article thumbnail

Embio Ltd. v. Malladi Drugs: Madras High Court Clarifies the Extent of Burden of Proof in Matters concerning Patent Revocation

SpicyIP

While the Court’s analysis touched upon multiple aspects of patentability and revocation, including ‘novelty,’ ‘inventive step,’ ‘non-obviousness’ and ‘person interested,’ the most significant point was related to the burden of proof in matters concerning patent revocation petitions. Thus, all three elements of ‘inventive step’ under s.

Invention 105
article thumbnail

Patent Protection on AI Inventions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

In the following sections, we will discuss an illustrative list of subject areas that may offer patentable AI inventions. (1) The state-of-art AI systems are far from perfection. However, inventors often need to improve various aspects of an existing AI system to make it fit and work for their applications. 1) Training phase.

Invention 242
article thumbnail

Patent Experts: No Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of Invention? No Problem!

JD Supra Law

The hypothetical person with ordinary skill in the art will have a certain amount of requisite experience in the subject matter of the patent at the time of the invention of the patent. By: BakerHostetler

Invention 115