Art Invention Patent 
The IPKat
OCTOBER 31, 2024
Cases relating to the exclusion of patentable subject matter on moral grounds are rare, and always serve to highlight the underlying moral and political framework necessary for a well-functioning IP system. The recent case T 2510/18 considered whether an invention derived from traditional remedies by dishonest means was immoral.
SpicyIP
NOVEMBER 9, 2024
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.’
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
AUGUST 30, 2021
In recent years, AI patent activity has exponentially increased. The figure below shows the volume of public AI patent applications categorized by AI component in the U.S. AI patent activities by year. Inventors and patent attorneys often face the challenge of effectively protecting new AI technology development.
SpicyIP
OCTOBER 29, 2024
Malladi Drugs, SpicyIP Intern Bhuwan Sarine analyses the Court’s finding on the burden of proof in patent matters concerning revocation petitions. 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”). Accordingly, the Court decided in favour of Malladi Drugs (“Respondent”), upholding the validity of its patent. Petitioner”) under s.
Erik K Pelton
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
The following is an edited transcript of my video Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Definitions and Differences. The following is an edited transcript of my video Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Definitions and Differences. A patent registration generally lasts for 20 years from the time the application was filed.
The IPKat
MARCH 21, 2025
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.
The IPKat
MARCH 26, 2025
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).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
113 
Let's personalize your content