This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
by Dennis Crouch New data from the USPTO shows that the amazing transformation in patent inventorship continues: the average number of inventors per utility patent has reached 3.2 inventors per patent seen in 1976. To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.
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. AI patent activities by year. Inventors and patent attorneys often face the challenge of effectively protecting new AI technology development.
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.’
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.
Earlier this month, IP diversity advocacy group Invent Together announced that it had launched an online learning platform known as The Inventor’sPatent Academy (TIPA), an e-learning course designed in collaboration with Qualcomm to educate inventors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds about the benefits of engaging with the U.S.
Malladi Drugs, SpicyIP Intern Bhuwan Sarine analyses the Court’s finding on the burden of proof in patent matters concerning revocation petitions. 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”). Accordingly, the Court decided in favour of Malladi Drugs (“Respondent”), upholding the validity of its patent. Petitioner”) under s.
Halloween is a time for goblins, ghouls, and—if you’re an inventor—a whole lot of creative thinking! Among the cauldron of Halloween patents, one particularly clever design stands out: a patented method for decorating pumpkins (and, technically, other fruits…but we’re not holding our breath for Halloween coconuts).
Most patents involve two or more joint inventors who all claim to have contributed significantly to the invention. The MPEP, for example, includes a statement in all-caps that “CONCEPTION MUST BE DONE IN THE MIND OF THE INVENTOR.” Above, I referred to conception as the key invention marker.
My name is Dennis Crouch, and I am a law professor at Mizzou and author of 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 scenario closely mirrors the role of generative AI in the invention process.
Vidal ask the Supreme Court one simple question: Does the Patent Act categorically restrict the statutory term ‘inventor’ to human beings alone? We are are now at a point where it is easy to see an AI tool creating inventive output. In Thaler’s view, DABUS was the inventor since it was the “individual.
Image: Thomson Reuters In ‘The Artificial Inventor’ ( Thomson Reuters ), Luz Sánchez García (University of Murcia) characterises humanity as standing at the cusp of an ‘Artificial Invention Age’ in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer used as a tool but rather a creative partner or independent innovator.
Recently, the Indian Patent Office rejected a patent application by UPL Ltd. for lack of sufficient disclosure mandated under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act. In the context of this order, SpicyIP intern Deepali Vashist discusses the disclosure requirement under the Patents Act and what it means for the larger patent bargain.
The latest decision from the United States, Thaler v Hirshfeld , comes off the heels of recent judgements in South Africa and Australia asking if AI can be considered the inventor in patent law. While South Africa and Australia answered in the affirmative, finding that AI passes the inventor test, the U.S.
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. Now the case is pending before the Federal Circuit.
One question that has recently been in the headlines around the world, thanks to the Artificial Inventor Project, is whether or not an AI system can be regarded as an inventor. In our recent paper, we critique Abbott’s proposal whilst contemplating AI’s status as property or person.
With South Africa’s patent office having recently granted the first patent to an AI inventor, and an Australian court ruling in favor of AI inventorship, it’s time to review how we got here—and where we’re going. Further, the USPTO has issued thousands of inventions that utilize AI.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed I speak with my friend Jason Harrier, former Chief Patent Counsel at Capital One and current co-founder and General Counsel of artificial intelligence (AI) company IP Copilot.
s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an artificial intelligence cannot be the named inventor of a patent under current legislation, concluding that British law requires a "natural person" to be behind an invention.
Increasingly, companies are using artificial intelligence to invent new methods and products. But can a named inventor be a non-human machine under the law? . By: Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
(Guest Post by Kevin Ahlstrom, Associate General Counsel, Patents, Meta. – Jason) Guided invention sessions not only increase idea submission rates but also transform individuals’ perception of themselves as inventors. . At Meta, employees are encouraged to submit patent ideas through an inventor portal.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a decision granting a Motion for Summary Judgment for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and upholding the Office’s view that AI algorithms cannot be listed as inventors on U.S.
The EPO Board of Appeal has published its full decision on the question of whether a machine can be an inventor ( J 8/20 ). The Board of Appeal had previously announced its decision to refuse two European patent applications naming an algorithm ("DABUS") as the sole inventor at the end of last year ( IPKat ).
It reportedly conceived two separate inventions without any human intervention and therefore, was designated as an inventor on patent applications related to those inventions. DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler.
On February 12, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued guidance on the patentability of inventions developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence, saying that a human must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) directed patent practitioners to current case law and sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) as reminders as the patent practitioners continue to work in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology space. MPEP Sections to Know – Especially for AI Inventions.
This post originally appeared as an article (“Stakeholders Should Not Miss Congress’s Invitation for Feedback on Patent Eligibility”) on Law.com on October 7, 2021. According to the opinion, the claimed method was directed to an application of Hooke’s law, and thus patent ineligible. See American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.
Inventors and patent practitioners filing patent applications before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may have an obligation to disclose if artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the innovation process. the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability.”
Can foreign applicants file US utility patent applications? Inventors located outside the US can file US patent applications. Foreign inventors, however, must be careful to follow the patent laws of the country in which the invention was made. Are you a foreign business looking to apply for a US patent?
The much discussed, but previously unreleased, Restoring America Invents Act has finally been made public. The bill was submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in what he described late last week as an attempt to reverse the reforms of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made by former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.
A world first – South Africa recently made headlines by granting a patent for ‘a food container based on fractal geometry’ to a non-human inventor, namely an artificial intelligence (AI) machine called DABUS. Each of these three jurisdictions found sufficient reasons in these formalities to reject DABUS’ patent applications.
During IPWatchdog LIVE 2021 in Dallas, Texas, I asked a handful of willing attendees for their thoughts on the impact of the America Invents Act (AIA) in anticipation of today, the ten-year anniversary of the day President Barack Obama signed the AIA into law. patent laws. innovation.
There is a split developing in the world over whether artificial intelligence software (AI) can be listed as an inventor on a patent application. In September 2021, the district court held that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Congress defined the term inventor in the Patent Act to include only natural persons.
Yes, a corporation may own or license an invention and its resulting patents. And in fact, most patents are owned by non-human persons. But, the law persists in most nations as it has for more than 200 years that patentableinventions must begin with a human person, the inventor. Read mine here ].
Kaijet highlights the narrowness of the pre-filing grace period (safe harbor) provision under the America Invents Act (AIA) and serves as a reminder that there are a number of patents that would have been valid under the pre-AIA patent system may no longer be valid under the current law. Sanho Corp. 2023-1336 (Fed. 35 U.S.C. §
Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). Also, Howard was not named as an inventor.
Understanding Patent Claim Types: A Guide for Inventors and Practitioners Patent claims define the scope of protection granted by a patent. Independent Claims: An independent claim stands on its own and includes all elements of the invention. This format finds use in chemical and pharmaceutical patents.
On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems and in particular generative AI (GenAI) systems have raised the question as to whether technical advances in the useful arts or synthetic content generated using these tools can qualify for patent or copyright protection. The Thaler and SURYAST decisions appeared first on Barry Sookman.
Vidal , a case involving inventor Dr. Stephen Thaler’s attempt to patent an invention created by his artificial intelligence (AI) system, DABUS. Thaler argued that DABUS, not himself or any other human, conceived the invention and identified its significance.
The idea of patentedinventions brings to mind machines fully realized - flying contraptions and engines with gears and pistons operating in coherent symphony. AI inventors sound much more like philosophers theorizing about machines, rather than mechanics describing a machine.
To be specific, market research performed before filing a Patent Application or after obtaining Patent Protection may help an inventor or innovator significantly in examining the business environment for his invention or innovation. He would also understand the profitability and commercial viability of his invention.
Registration at UKIPO The case in question, originating in 2019, presents a groundbreaking legal dilemma: Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be acknowledged as an inventor for the purposes of patent ownership? Uniquely, he declared that he was not the inventor; instead, he attributed the creations to his AI system named DABUS.
According to the USPTO guidance for AI-assisted inventions , AI has the potential to solve some of society's most difficult challenges. However, in the patent realm, the USPTO also believes that "inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity".
After a nine-year saga, beginning when Amgen sued Sanofi for allegedly infringing two of its patents in 2014, the Supreme Court held that Amgen’s asserted patents failed to satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and are thus invalid. In re Wands , 858 F.2d 2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content