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
In early June, the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law ’s Center for Intellectual Property, Information, and Privacy Law organized and hosted its 12th Annual Ethics in the Practice of IP Law virtual seminar. The Seminar also discussed implicit bias in the practice of IP.
Highlights Moving Towards a Wrongful Obtainment Standard Part I Wrongful obtainment is a less explored area of patentlaw in the Indian context. Patent Office orders have partially answered what it means to wrongfully obtain a patent but are inconsistent in adjudicating wrongful obtainment claims.
Professor Ryan Abbott represented Dr Thaler, and has advocated widely for patents on AI-generated inventions. It is not an unusual sight to see a fully Lycra-clad patent litigation partner or barrister circulating at an IP seminar. Attendance is free for members and new applicants for membership.
First, EP 873 was held prima facie invalid based on a lack of inventiveness. However, Mylan also relied on the fact that EP 2 137 537, the parent patent of EP 873, had been revoked for lack of inventive step by the Opposition Division of the EPO. But patience is rewarded.
The third was an essay competition held by CREATe on the topic of how Artificial Intelligence would change the practice of intellectual property law. Shamnad won the second prize in that competition for his essay titled ‘Artificial Invention: Mind the Machine’. Submission Guidelines.
Upcoming events and competitions: UCL IBIL course: Law Drafting and negotiating clinical trial agreements on Monday 4th and Tuesday 5th November. Letter from different countries , 8 Nov 2024 UCL IBIL seminar: PatentLaw – Fit for an (emotional) AI age?: IESEG school of management, Design protection in the fashion field.
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