Remove Inventor Remove Litigation Remove Patent Prosecution
article thumbnail

CAFC ‘Unambiguously’ Backs USPTO in AI as Inventor Fight

IP Watchdog

Vidal that an artificial intelligence (AI) machine does not qualify as an inventor under the Patent Act. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled today in Thaler v. The decision is the latest in a series of rulings around the world considering the topic, most of which have found similarly.

Inventor 134
article thumbnail

To Make the U.S. Patent System More Efficient, Let’s Obviate Obviousness

IP Watchdog

Recovering money from users of technology requires movement on the part of inventors of technology. For example, receiving compensation from those who use patented designs without permission often requires patent owners (e.g., All of these movements require the inventor to possess a patent.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Hyatt Returns to SCOTUS with Request to Clarify Standard for Summary Judgment, APA Scope of Review Provisions

IP Watchdog

Gilbert Hyatt, an inventor who has been granted more than 70 patents and has filed more than 400 applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has petitioned the U.S. Hyatt has been embroiled in litigation with the USPTO for decades and won a previous Supreme Court appeal in 2012. .

Inventor 115
article thumbnail

DABUS Sent Back to Drawing Board Following Reversal of Inventorship Decision by Australia Court

IP Watchdog

On April 13, 2022, the Federal Court of Australia, on appeal, reversed its 2021 decision that DABUS, an artificial intelligence (AI) machine, qualified as an inventor for a patent application under Australian law. Thaler has filed patent applications in several countries around the world for inventions created by DABUS.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

Principals Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse Author Managing IP Article “Coordinating Patent Prosecution in the U.S. and Europe”

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

When applying for a patent at the USPTO, the applicant must name all inventors of the invention claimed in the patent application. Absent an assignment, each joint inventor may exploit the invention without the permission of, and without accounting to, the other joint inventors. Practice tip. Right of priority.

article thumbnail

Whither goest the patent troll?

The IPKat

First, for the sake of good order, Lederer means by the term patent trolls an abuse of the patent system, in which— low-quality patents that are asserted against innovative companies by entities that often don’t even make any products. The root source of this situation, according to Lederer, is the patent prosecution process.

article thumbnail

Insilico Medicine: Lessons in IP strategy from a front-runner in AI-drug discovery

The IPKat

Nonetheless, the inventive story behind a novel compound may still play a crucial role during patent prosecution and/or subsequent litigation. Further reading USPTO call for comments: Impact of AI on patentability (May 2024) When is the inventor of an AI model also an inventor of the model's output?

IP 64