Remove Art Remove Inventor Remove Ownership Remove Patent Application
article thumbnail

…And The Covaxin Patent Saga Continues: BBIL Changes the Patent Application Again

SpicyIP

The Story Till Now On one hand, COVID-19 cases are rising yet again to everyone’s surprise, and on the other, the surprises from the Covaxin patent application don’t seem to stop. BBIL then did a quick about-face on this application and issued a clarification on June 22 that they would be refiling with proper credits to ICMR.

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). The court in Pannu v.

Inventor 110
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything?

The IPKat

In keeping with the so-called media "silly season" of late summer, PatKat thought she would check-in on the AI inventor debate. In the pending European DABUS case ( EP4067251 ), DABUS's invention as originally claimed was found to lack novelty in view of 25 year old prior art. Sceptical Kat Has DABUS invented?

article thumbnail

“Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors?” – The Max Planck Institute on Machine Autonomy and AI Patent Rights

IPilogue

In July 2021, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 that artificial intelligence (AI) systems may be deemed “inventors” under Australian patent law. The principal question at hand is whether non-human entities, such as AI systems, should have legal capacity.

Inventor 111
article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

LexBlog IP

Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). Also, Howard was not named as an inventor.

article thumbnail

Joint Inventorship: AI-Human Style

Patently-O

The key takeaway here is that the USPTO believes that an AI-developed invention is patentable so long as a human satisfies the joint-inventorship standard of “significantly contributing to the invention.” patents and patent applications. According to the USPTO, each claim needs to have a human inventor.

Inventor 117
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Continues to Apply Strict Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Analysis

Patently-O

The decision cements that for OTDP analysis, any comparison of unexpected results or long-felt need must be made to the applicant’s own earlier patent claims, not the closest “prior art.” The policy goal is to prevent unjustified timewise extension of exclusive patent rights. In re: Institut Pasteur , No.

Patent 51