Remove Designs Remove Document Remove Invention
article thumbnail

Not Examined the Inventive Step Enough? Madras HC Remands Patent Application Back to IPO for Reconsideration

SpicyIP

Recently the MHC remanded a matter back to the Controller for re-consideration on whether the cited prior art would render the invention obvious in light of the explanation in the specification. Interestingly, the impugned order by the Controller has already held the invention to be obvious based on the claims filed by the applicant.

article thumbnail

Guidance on Patenting Inventions with AI Contributions

Patently-O

As artificial intelligence progresses at an unprecedented pace, numerous cases have emerged where generative AI has played a crucial role in conceiving an invention. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to designate the human, who contributed to only a part of the invention and collaborated with the AI, as the sole inventor.

Invention 126
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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). 21-193 (Supreme Court 2021). Read the Petition here ].

article thumbnail

When is the inventor of an AI model also an inventor of the model's output? A closer look at the USPTO Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

The IPKat

According to the USPTO guidance for AI-assisted inventions , AI has the potential to solve some of society's most difficult challenges. How then are AI-generated inventions to be protected? The USPTO's guiding principles for AI-assisted inventions The Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal ( 43 F.4th 4th 1207, 1213 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination?

SpicyIP

By Kevin Preji On 28th Feb, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in allowing an appeal, clarified the role of the ‘person skilled in the art’ (‘PSITA’) in determining non-obviousness. The patent office issued a first examination report in June 2019, (7 years later!)

article thumbnail

Eligibility: Patent’s Claims of Inventive Concept Overcome Eligibility Dismissal

Patently-O

Here, that “intrinsic record” is the patent document and the “Rule 12 record” is the complaint. In its amended complaint, the patentee alleged two “inventive concepts.” To be clear, I don’t know whether or not these features count as “inventive concepts” under Alice.

article thumbnail

Difference Between Trademark And Design Registration In India

IP and Legal Filings

Trademark, and design are two very crucial kinds of IPRs which provide a certain extent of protection at their levels. Trademark and design are two of the most important and popular IPRs which can sometimes be confused as the line between their differences may perhaps seem blurry.