Remove 2002 Remove Intellectual Property Law Remove Invention Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Innovating the Term ‘Inventor’: AI and Patent Law

IPilogue

Recently, AI technology once again exceeded the legal community’s expectations by filing a patent for its invention of interlocking food containers. Under patent law, it is the general expectation that inventors are humans, not robots. Patent Law in Canada. 2002 SCC 77 (“Apotex”).

Inventor 106
article thumbnail

Australia’s Reversal of its DABUS decision on AI-Generated Inventions: How Does this Impact an Imminent Canadian Discussion on AI Inventorship?

IPilogue

Thaler’s application for his AI, DABUS, to be the patent owner of an invention titled “ Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention ,” a product solely created by DABUS without any human interference. Based on current trends, Canada could become the first Western nation to grant patent rights to AI.

Invention 111
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

[Guest post] Closing the patent loophole across borders

The IPKat

Patents set themselves apart from other IP rights as inventions are often composed of multiple physical components or steps in a method, which does not necessarily have to exist or be performed at the same time and place. has written about this in an article that was recently published in the UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law.

Patent 86
article thumbnail

Evergreening of Patents

Kashishipr

In 2002, the Federal Trade Commission, after an extensive inquiry, found out that over 75% of applications by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers were in some way or other involved in litigation initiated by the original patent holders. India changed its Patents Laws in 2005 to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.

Patent 105
article thumbnail

Defining Boundaries: IP Law Addresses Exterritoriality, Lexicography & Human Touch

LexBlog IP

.” But our problem often is that the law, or lawyers, frequently use unfamiliar or exotic terms that others claim have no more understood meaning than a reference to a “ vermicious kind ,” and those or other lawyers may overuse a word that they do not seem to actually comprehend. Eset, LLC, a patent case.

Law 52