Remove Confidentiality Remove Invention Remove Public Use Remove Reference
article thumbnail

Spilling Secrets to AI: Does Chatting with ChatGPT Unleash Trade Secret or Invention Disclosure Dilemmas?

Trading Secrets

API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.

article thumbnail

Spilling Secrets to AI: Does Chatting with ChatGPT Unleash Trade Secret or Invention Disclosure Dilemmas?

LexBlog IP

API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Spilling Secrets to AI: Does Chatting with ChatGPT Unleash Trade Secret or Invention Disclosure Dilemmas?

LexBlog IP

API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.

article thumbnail

Printed Publication: Documents Made Available only to Customers

Patently-O

The 1836 Patent Act added the caveat that no patent should issue on an invention previously “described in any printed publication.” A new petition asks the court to examine the phrase again and help define when a document crosses the publication threshold. 102(a)(1). Centripetal Networks, Inc. 869, 877 (Fed.

article thumbnail

The free evaluation of evidence of prior use (T 0042/19)

The IPKat

The Opponent submitted evidence of alleged prior use in the form of the insulin injection pen ( GensuPen ). The Opponent argued that the claimed invention lacked novelty in view of the prior use of the GensuPen ( Article 54(2) EPC ). The Opposition Division (OD) found that the alleged prior use was not sufficiently proven.

article thumbnail

Key Points from the USPTO’s New Guidance on AI Use

IP Intelligence

The USPTO begins with a review of the duties of candor and good faith, confidentiality, and export regulations. Therefore, while AI tools can be used to assist with forms (e.g., AI also cannot hold a USPTO account or independently access a practitioner’s account. persons may be deemed an export.” [2]

article thumbnail

The IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal Year in Review 2023

The IPKat

Another source of confusion is the divergent approaches of the UK courts and the EPO with respect to the test for the evidence standard in sufficiency and inventive step analysis. Readers looking for some clarity on G 2/21 may wish to skip straight to the recent referring Board's interpretation of G 2/21 in T 0116/18. Food for thought.

Invention 108