Remove Designs 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

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
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

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

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

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

The IPKat

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 ). Pluripotent and totipotent cells differ in their developmental potential and stage at which they appear during embryo development.

Invention 102
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