IP Tech Blog

MARCH 5, 2024

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.

Invention 57

Invention Inventor Patent Patent Application 57

Patently-O

AUGUST 5, 2022

In the case, Thaler claims to own a computer named DABUS, and that DABUS conceived-of two patentable inventions. Of all the arguments presented, I thought that Thaler’s best relied upon Section 103’s statement that patentability shall not depend upon “the manner in which the invention was. ” Slip Op.

Invention 100

Invention Inventor Patent Law Patent 100

IP Intelligence

SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

The hypothetical person with ordinary skill in the art will have a certain amount of requisite experience in the subject matter of the patent at the time of the invention of the patent. Though, as the Federal Circuit notes, the expert may still be cross-examined on the lack of requisite experience at the time of the invention. [1]

Invention 52

Invention Art Patent Intellectual Property 52

The IPKat

NOVEMBER 13, 2023

In particular, in this divisional patent Regeneron had attempted to avoid a novelty attack by explicitly disclaiming embodiments of the invention from the claim. Legal background: Undisclosed disclaimers Patent claims generally define the essential features present in the claimed invention.

Invention 70

Invention Art Patent Law 70

LexBlog IP

MARCH 5, 2024

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. an AI] prompt.

Invention 52

Invention Inventor Patent Patent Application 52

JD Supra Law

MARCH 15, 2024

The precedential opinion reaffirmed that when a patentee consistently describes its present invention, its claims will be limited to such invention unless it meets a narrow exception. The decision reaffirmed that targeted advertising can be an abstract idea. By: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Invention 65

Invention Advertising Advertising 65

Patently-O

APRIL 29, 2024

by Dennis Crouch Ikorongo Technology has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s heightened disclosure standard for the “same invention” requirement in reissue patents. The petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit’s test, established in Antares Pharma, Inc.

Invention 81

Invention Patent Law Technology 81

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 14, 2024

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 52

Inventor Invention Patent Designs 52

Patently-O

JANUARY 19, 2024

Ownership of Invention : By accepting employment with the Corporation, you hereby agree that all discoveries, designs, devices, and concepts developed by you in the course of and during your employment with the Corporation shall be the property of the Corporation. The quote above comes from the employment agreement. ” Brian Barnett.

Inventor 69

Inventor Ownership Contracts Intellectual Property 69

Patently-O

APRIL 8, 2024

By Dennis Crouch In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. 103 as part of the Patent Act of 1952, it nonetheless applied a similar requirement for “invention.” 101, all under the general rubric of the “invention” requirement.

Invention 64

Invention Art Patent Television 64

The IPKat

AUGUST 4, 2023

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.

Invention 98

Invention Art Patent Reporting 98

The IPKat

JULY 18, 2024

The UPC Central Division also takes a strong stance on the patentability of therapeutic antibody inventions in Europe. The decision of the UPC confirms that the US and European approaches to antibody inventions are diametrically opposed. The decision is not just remarkable for being the first decision of its kind.

Invention 64

Invention Art Patent Patent Law 64

Patently-O

DECEMBER 2, 2021

Respondent’s process is unpatentable under § 101 not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because, once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention. Thus, the claim as a whole was ineligible. Diehr , 450 U.S.

Law 86

Law Invention Art Patent 86

The IPKat

JUNE 13, 2024

The cover article of the May 2024 edition of the CIPA Journal proposed a new test for inventive step using AI. The CIPA journal article proposes to use an AI derived measurement of semantic similarity between the claims and the prior art as a new test for inventive step.

Journalism 60

Journalism Invention Art Patent 60

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 14, 2024

The USPTO released inventorship guidance on February 12, 2024, for inventions assisted by artificial intelligence (AI). 2022), and this release provides guidance regarding the open question of human inventorship for inventions developed by a person working with the assistance of an AI system. Vidal , 43 F.4th 4th 1207 (Fed.

Invention 52

Invention Inventor Intellectual Property Law Intellectual Property 52

IP Intelligence

FEBRUARY 23, 2024

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its much anticipated Inventorship Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions (“Guidance”). [1] The Guidance strives to ensure balance between protecting and incentivizing AI-assisted inventions and not hindering future human innovation, as “the patent system is designed to encourage human ingenuity.” [2]

Invention 52

Invention Inventor Patent Application Design 52

The IP Law Blog

AUGUST 11, 2022

Arguably, an AI system, which is a non-human, can also create or invent. While these systems may have been programmed and/or trained by a human, the human may not have actually invented the apparatus or method claimed in the patent application. But can an AI system be a named inventor on a patent? Stephen L.

Inventor 96

Inventor Invention Patent Patent Application 96

SpicyIP

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

In this post, let’s continue the journey and sift through SpicyIP’s “August” pages from 2005 to the present and see where we have arrived after all these years. If you have missed the previous posts of this series or want to follow it, please check SpicyIP Flashbacks ! Here we go: 1. Both of these questions were answered in the negative.

IP 88

IP Reporting Plagiarism Government 88

IP Watchdog

APRIL 1, 2024

Essentially, the invention is a type of gift card that “can serve a number of functions, thus allowing the consumer to have one card which may act as their card for financial transactions, long-distance telephone calls, loyalty information, and medical information.” Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday, April 1.

Patent 59

Patent Patent Infringement Invention Litigation 59

Patently-O

MAY 25, 2023

These patents, US Patents 8,048,032, RE45,380, RE45,776, RE45,760, and RE47,379, cover inventions devised to offer an “enhanced backup support” in contrast to using a guide catheter individually. It’s important to understand that the process of invention involves two steps – conception and reduction to practice.

Invention 72

Invention Inventor Art Patent Application 72

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 15, 2024

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.

Invention 52

Invention Inventor Patent Patent Application 52

SpicyIP

NOVEMBER 9, 2024

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.’ Cipla Ltd. ,

Patent Law 93

Patent Law Law Invention Patent 93

U.S. Department of Commerce

AUGUST 16, 2021

Invention-Con 2021: Capitalizing on Your Intellectual Property. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) free online Invention-Con 2021: Capitalizing on your intellectual property, coming August 18-20. Presentations and workshops will cover: Putting your creativity to work. August 16, 2021. ASowah@doc.gov. Mon, 08/16/2021 - 10:46.

Intellectual Property 75

Intellectual Property Invention Inventor Music 75

The IPKat

MAY 13, 2024

T 0629/22 considered how the credibility/plausibility of a claimed invention should be addressed in the face of contradictory evidence for the technical effect relied on for inventive step. The evidence requirement for inventive step was recently considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 2/21. amylopectin, 0.5-8

Invention 56

Invention Publishing Art Patent 56

Larson & Larson

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023

Filing an application with claims to more than one invention will result in a restriction from the patent examiner. One of the key themes that arises from the restriction requirement is the concept of unity of invention. Patent laws mandate that an invention needs to be clear, distinct, and unified to warrant patent protection.

Patent Application 40

Patent Application Invention Patent Inventor 40

Patently-O

NOVEMBER 13, 2023

by Dennis Crouch Berkely Center for Law & Technology is hosting a great half-day virtual-conference this week: “AI as an Inventing Tool – it’s Implications for Patent Law” organized by Prof. The Winslow Tableau presents an unrealistic conception of the PHOSITA possessing encyclopedic knowledge of all prior art.

Invention 69

Invention Patent Law Law Art 69

The IPKat

JULY 31, 2023

A question that confuses discussions on sufficiency is whether certain sufficiency tests are applicable to only certain types of invention. However, according to the established case law of the EPO, the underlying test for sufficiency is consistent, regardless of the type of invention.

Invention 52

Invention Law Patent 52

Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

In its amended complaint, the patentee alleged two “inventive concepts.” To be clear, I don’t know whether or not these features count as “inventive concepts” under Alice. The appellate decision finds some importance in the fact that the intrinsic evidence recognizes the inventive concept as inventive.

Invention 60

Invention Art Patent Patent Application 60

Patently-O

AUGUST 4, 2021

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. Like the ‘conception’ test in American patent law – the object of the test is to determine the identity of the ‘devisor’ of the invention.

Invention 128

Invention Patent Inventor Intellectual Property 128

LexBlog IP

AUGUST 11, 2022

Arguably, an AI system, which is a non-human, can also create or invent. While these systems may have been programmed and/or trained by a human, the human may not have actually invented the apparatus or method claimed in the patent application. But can an AI system be a named inventor on a patent? Stephen L.

Inventor 52

Inventor Invention Patent Application Patent 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 5, 2022

It is common ground that the hardware elements are well-known in the field of electronic casino gaming, and that the new and inventive contribution resides wholly in the feature game implementation. The Aristocrat case raises interesting questions.

Invention 52

Invention Technology Patent Business 52

JD Supra Law

AUGUST 13, 2024

The panel presented the complexities of artificial intelligence and generative AI in the IP landscape. Panelists covered USPTO inventorship guidelines on AI-assisted inventions; the increasing. By: Kilpatrick

Intellectual Property 101

Intellectual Property Invention IP Patent 101

IP Watchdog

OCTOBER 18, 2022

Other robust evidence shows that current Section 101 law has harmed innovation by removing the incentives to develop and commercialize particular inventions of public importance. innovation ecosystem.

Litigation 90

Litigation Patent Invention Law 90

SpicyIP

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

Blackberry I: Purely related to Algorithm In Blackberry I , the invention, which allowed easier configuration of data between wireless servers, was rejected by the Patent Office as a ‘computer program per se ’ u/s. The question before the DHC was simply- Is the invention non-patentable u/s. Until then, it cannot be patented.

Invention 72

Invention Patent Business Patent Application 72

IP Tech Blog

JUNE 30, 2021

A patent must teach one skilled in the relevant art how to make and use the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. p) explains that unless an invention is disclosed such that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without undue experimentation, at least one operative example of the invention must be set forth.

Invention 52

Invention Inventor Patent Application Art 52

Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

” The patent document is clearly directed toward the permeable portion as a key aspect of the invention. But, one claim in the original application (Claim 31) was directed to other aspects of the invention and did not expressly require use of the permeable member. Later Novacept was purchased for $300m by Hologic.

Invention 61

Invention Inventor Patent Application Patent 61

IP Tech Blog

JANUARY 4, 2022

Applicants of any size can request prioritized examination using Track One examination under Rule 1.102 (e)(1) for any invention, at any time, but this requires a substantial fee ($4,200 for Large Entity; $2,100 for Small Entity).

Invention 57

Invention Intellectual Property Inventor Patent Application 57