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Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application! What Reasoning Did the Court Give for its Decision?

Art 105
article thumbnail

UMKC School of Law Wins National Patent Application Drafting Competition

Patently-O

Patent and Trademark Office announced the winner of this year’s National Patent Application Drafting Competition (NPADC), the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. The competition is scored on the basis of the patent application and an oral presentation before a panel of three judges.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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 109
article thumbnail

What’s in a Missing Name? Some Questions Around the Covaxin Patent Application

SpicyIP

The Exclusion of ICMR from the Patent Application Last weekend, a series of unusual developments regarding the Covaxin patent (Patent Application Number: 202041007559) generated significant buzz. [A big thanks to Swaraj for his inputs on the post.]

article thumbnail

Is Machine-Made Art Copyrightable?

The IP Law Blog

The United States Copyright Office has refused to register a copyright for a work of art created by a machine. The work of art is a two-dimensional picture that is mostly dark and sort of looks like a painting. In 2019, the Copyright Office refused the application on the grounds that it lacked “human authorship.”

Art 97
article thumbnail

Ulm University v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs: Madras High Court quashes unreasoned order of Patent Office

SpicyIP

Controller of Patents and Designs , came down heavily on the IPO for its shoddy order rejecting the patent application filed by the appellant. The judgment raises serious concerns regarding the quality of functioning of the patent office. Order The Patent Controller issued a cryptic order rejecting the patent application.

Designs 59
article thumbnail

The Legacy of A.B. Dick and Motion Picture Patents: How these 100+ Year Old Ruling Reshaped Patent Law

Patently-O

” The dissenters saw a fundamental distinction between a patentee’s exclusive rights in the patented invention itself versus contractual rights in unpatented articles used with the invention. Lexmark argued that these restrictions should be enforceable through patent law, similar to the reasoning in A.B.