Remove Article 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

Board of Appeal finds that human/pig chimeras are a risk to human dignity (T 1553/22)

The IPKat

The Board of Appeal found that the invention in question was an offence against "human dignity" given that the scope of the claims included scenarios in which human cells could integrate into the the brain or germ-line of the chimeric animals specified in the claims.

Invention 102
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Artificial intelligence is not breaking patent law: EPO publishes DABUS decision (J 8/20)

The IPKat

The decision in J 8/20 demonstrates that the current patent system is more than capable of dealing with AI inventions when and if they arise, without harming innovation or treating the AI inventors unfairly. Thus, contrary to the recent Nature article on this topic, AI is not breaking patent law.

article thumbnail

Impact of AI on Global IP Systems

IIPRD

AI and the Global IP System We need a worldwide intellectual property (IP) structure that encourages innovation and invention if we are to benefit from generative AI. Specifically, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have opened up new avenues for invention that only minimally entail human intervention.

IP 98
article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: The AIA at Ten – How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?

Patently-O

New Patently-O Law Journal article by Colleen V. Chien, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, and Janelle Barbier and Obie Reynolds, both second-year JD students; all at Santa Clara University School of Law. 2021 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 34. Pre-AIAPatents ).

Art 126
article thumbnail

G 2/21: Did the invention as originally disclosed embody the technical effect?

The IPKat

In order to understand whether a purported technical effect may be relied on for inventive step, the EBA concludes that the substantive question remains what would the skilled person understand from the application as filed? For the EBA, the substantive question at the heart of G 2/21 is a familiar one that needs no reference to plausibility.

Invention 131
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit asked to Decide whether US Patent Law Excludes Non-Human Inventors

Patently-O

DABUS created two separate inventions — a “Neural Flame” and “Fractal Container.” Thaler filed for patent protection, but refused to name himself as the inventor — although he created DABUS, these particular inventions did not originate in his mind. Thaler created an AI system that he calls DABUS. Thaler Brief.

Inventor 127