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
Over to Konstantin for the story and his take on the developments: "Some may associate businesses whose primary aim is to assert patents in litigation to obtain license revenue with the Eastern District of Texas or the Unwired Planet decision in the UK, and not think about cases further afield from Marshall, Texas or London.
Introduction Patenttrolls are entities that do not actively develop their inventions but instead acquire patent rights for obvious inventions to prevent others from working on them or to collect licensing fees. In a way, patenttrolls serve a purpose, much like lawyers.
The students explored an interesting and complex moot problem about infringement of a patent protecting a novel method of using W-band frequencies for telecommunications. 57 of the Patent Act is the usual remedy that upholds the bargain theory of patentlaw.
The USPTO has issued a request for comments regarding the impact of AI on patentability. The USPTO specifically calls for views on how the proliferation of AI could affect evaluations of patentability, including what qualifies as prior art and the capabilities of the person skilled in the art. Comments are due by 29 June 2024.
Abnormal patents in china. ” The crackdown follows years of criticism that the Chinese patent system was being abused by “patenttrolls” who filed frivolous lawsuits or submitted low-quality applications in order to extort money from companies. million filings, or roughly 15% of submissions that year.
Patents , as a vital form of intellectual property (IP), safeguard these innovations, providing inventors and businesses exclusive rights to their inventions while promoting the dissemination of knowledge. As we move through 2024, several key patent trends are reshaping the future of innovation.
In this episode, Yuri delved into the transformative potential of AI in IP Law, offering a glimpse into the future of this exciting field. Let’s dive into the key points discussed: AI in PatentLaw : Yuri discusses the potential of AI in the field of patentlaw.
Patents A South African decision to recognize an artificial Intelligence system (DABUS) as an inventor was one of most discussed IP news items of the last several weeks [see The IPKat’s posts on the DABUS saga in various jurisdictions here , here , and here ].
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