Article 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.
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. 1 are defined in an article published in 2020 by the USPTO. AI patent activities by year. from 1990-2018. The eight AI components in FIG.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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.’
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).
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 problem-solution places heavy emphasis on the problem to be solved by the invention in view of the closest prior art.
The IPKat
JANUARY 15, 2025
A recent EPO Board of Appeal decision considered the patentability of human-animal chimeras and where the line should be drawn on moral acceptability ( T 1553/22 ).
The IPKat
JANUARY 22, 2025
The Board of Appeal decision in T 0816/22 considered whether post-published phase III clinical trial data showing lack of efficacy can invalidate a second medical use patent that appeared plausible based on the data in the application as filed.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
113 
Let's personalize your content