Remove Designs Remove Document Remove Invention
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. This document outlines the AI/IP Research Project and offers preliminary policy suggestions for the creation of AI-related IP legislation.

IP 98
article thumbnail

Madras High Court holds that not all inventions must yield physical products to be patentable

Selvam & Selvam Blog

The application, titled Method of Preheating and Controlling the Temperature of Fuel Injected into a Combustion Engine, was refused by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on the ground that the invention fell under the exclusions listed in Section 3(m) of the Patents Act.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 14-October 20)

SpicyIP

Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, holding that methods for producing antibodies through the genetic modification of non-human animals are indeed patentable. They had filed voluminous additional documents running into many pages which included the extensive filings of the expert witness. Making Tall Claims: Amendments u/s.

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
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

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.

Invention 114
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!)

Invention 111