Inventor Ownership Patent Prosecution 
IP Watchdog
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems.
Patently-O
JULY 22, 2022
More patent applications filed rather quickly, all claiming priority back to that original application filed during the consulting agreement period. One complicating issue is that the patent applications list three other inventors who were (apparently) not subject to the agreements with Sleep Number. 3d 793, 798 (D.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts
JUNE 14, 2022
Inventorship in the US is a critical component of patent ownership. When applying for a patent at the USPTO, the applicant must name all inventors of the invention claimed in the patent application. One joint inventor cannot stop another from independently selling, conveying, assigning, or licensing the patent.
The IPKat
AUGUST 11, 2023
In keeping with the so-called media "silly season" of late summer, PatKat thought she would check-in on the AI inventor debate. The process of patent prosecution determines whether the application contains an invention that may be awarded a patent. Sceptical Kat Has DABUS invented? Perhaps herein lies the problem.
The IP Law Blog
MARCH 30, 2023
In some industries, patents may even be essentially required to enter the market and compete successfully. However, the cost of obtaining and maintaining patents may be a barrier for individual inventors and small businesses to benefit from the advantage or enter certain markets.
IP Tech Blog
JUNE 18, 2021
Contrary to most legal practice, representing inventors to secure a patent does not require a licensed attorney. Patent agents” can also represent inventors when seeking a patent from the USPTO. On this exam, applicants are tested on laws and rules that address patentability issues and inventor obligations. (A
Intellectual Property Law Blog
DECEMBER 14, 2023
The applicant, Malvern, unsuccessfully traversed the rejection on the merits, but removed the ’175 patent from prior art consideration by arguing that § 103(c)(1) applied, due to common ownership. After a change in ownership, Malvern sought supplemental examination of the ’175 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
105 
Let's personalize your content