Remove Art Remove Invention Remove Patent Law
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.’

article thumbnail

Advantageous Effect of “Improved User Experience” in Inventiveness Determination

JD Supra Law

of the Chinese Patent Law prescribes that: inventiveness means that, as compared with the prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents a notable progress. Article 22.3 By: Linda Liu & Partners

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

AI as an Inventing Tool – it’s Implications for Patent Law

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Berkely Center for Law & Technology is hosting a great half-day virtual-conference this week: “AI as an Inventing Tool – it’s Implications for Patent Law” organized by Prof. It is then interesting to think about whether the level of skill in the art is changed by the addition of AI.

article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications?

SpicyIP

Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application! Despite the withdrawal of the appellant’s patent application, it was wrongfully published.

Art 105
article thumbnail

Discerning Signal from Noise: Navigating the Flood of AI-Generated Prior Art

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity. Still, seemingly qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.

Art 111
article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The Board of Appeal in T 2803/18 , in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.