Remove Invention Remove Litigation Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Thaler v. Vidal: Will Patentability be Negated by the Manner of Invention?

Patently-O

DABUS apparently created two inventions–a “neural flame” and a “fractal container.” Rather, he says that it was DABUS who did the inventing. But, the PTO refused to issue the patent without a human listed inventor. ” Abbott and Barghaan litigated the case below as well.

Invention 100
article thumbnail

Guest Post: DABUS Gains Traction: South Africa Becomes First Country to Recognize AI-Invented Patent

Patently-O

Ryan Abbott, have made headlines around the world as they sought patent protection for a fractal-inspired beverage container (shown below) that they contend was invented by DABUS. Does substantive South African patent law preclude AI inventorship? Was granting the patent a mistake? Stephen Thaler and Prof.

Invention 128
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

Patent Law at the Supreme Court September 2021

Patently-O

What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § See also Mohapatra v. Hirshfeld (pro se). PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v.

article thumbnail

Australian Judge Rules Inventions Developed by Artificial Intelligence Can Qualify for Patent Protection

The IP Law Blog

Commissioner of Patents , case number VID 108 of 2021, in the Federal Court of Australia, an Australian Federal Judge became the first known jurist to rule that inventions developed by artificial intelligence can qualify for patent protection. In Thaler v. And, nothing in the Act dictates the contrary conclusion.

article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The Board of Appeal in T 2803/18 , in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

article thumbnail

Today in Patent Law Class: Markman v. Westview Instruments

Patently-O

Today in Patent Law Class, we covered the Supreme Court’s important decision in Markman v. 370 (1996) focusing on the question of whether the patentee has a 7th Amendment right to have a jury decide “genuine factual disputes about the meaning of a patent?” by Dennis Crouch. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. The settlement also included a license to thousands of Qualcomm patents. 2022)(forthcoming).