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

Who Invented This? The Continuing Importance of Human Ingenuity in Patenting AI Related Inventions

IP Tech Blog

The Guidance, for USPTO examiners and applicants, addresses inventorship and the use of AI, including generative AI, in the inventive process. The Guidance provides illustrative examples in which AI systems play different roles in the inventive process, to show how the USPTO will analyze inventorship issues.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Who Invented This? The Continuing Importance of Human Ingenuity in Patenting AI Related Inventions

LexBlog IP

The Guidance, for USPTO examiners and applicants, addresses inventorship and the use of AI, including generative AI, in the inventive process. The Guidance provides illustrative examples in which AI systems play different roles in the inventive process, to show how the USPTO will analyze inventorship issues.

article thumbnail

Petition for review filed in referring decision to G2/21 (T 0116/18)

The IPKat

The Opponent in the referring case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 2/21 has filed a petition for review following the final decision of the Board of Appeal. G 2/21 and T 0116/18 : Case catch-up In G 2/21 , the EBA considered whether post-published evidence may be taken into account for inventive step. Grasping at straws?

article thumbnail

Interpretation of G 2/21: Inventive step may be supported solely by post-published data (T 0116/18)

The IPKat

The minutes of oral proceedings have been published from the referring Board of Appeal case behind G 2/21 ( T 0116/18 ). The minutes are brief but confirm the Board of Appeal's decision to acknowledge the inventive step of the claimed invention and to dismiss the appeal. How many moths needed for an invention? 12.5.1).

Invention 117
article thumbnail

Crystal clear? G 2/21 applied to polymorph patents (T 1994/22)

The IPKat

Since G 2/21 , Boards of Appeal have united on the interpretation that the evidence standard for inventive step (the "plausibility/credibility test") remains unchanged. The Board of Appeal in T 0116/18 equated this test with that of whether the technical effect is "embodied" by the technical teaching of the application as filed.

Invention 112
article thumbnail

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications?

SpicyIP

Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application! Despite the withdrawal of the appellant’s patent application, it was wrongfully published.

Art 105