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. student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.
Patently-O
MARCH 11, 2022
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. The USPTO rejected the applications — explaining US patents must name a human inventor. Now the case is pending before the Federal Circuit. Thaler Brief.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
MARCH 11, 2025
Traditionally, the purchase of the tangible copy of a work afforded the buyer or every lawful acquirer of the tangible copy the possibility to enjoy the work as long as the physical object incorporating the work exists. This leaves a vast area of unprotected elements that are necessary to creators, inventors, scientists and businesses.
Patently-O
JULY 28, 2021
Most patents involve two or more joint inventors who all claim to have contributed significantly to the invention. Conception of the invention is typically seen as the critical legal determinant of invention and some courts have written that each joint inventor must have contributed substantially to the conception of the invention.*
Patently-O
MARCH 21, 2023
Vidal ask the Supreme Court one simple question: Does the Patent Act categorically restrict the statutory term ‘inventor’ to human beings alone? In Thaler’s case, the PTO and courts short-circuited the patentability analysis because the purported inventor is a machine, and machines simply are not permitted to be inventors.
IPilogue
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
Sabrina Macklai is an IPilogue Senior Editor and a 2L JD Candidate at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. . Emily Prieur is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Queen’s University Faculty of Law. . But while AI is creating new opportunities and innovations, the law has yet to catch up.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 13, 2021
Over to the Professors: "There is an increasing influential and bludgeoning legal literature on how artificial intelligence (AI) systems should be treated in law. 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.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
105 
Let's personalize your content