Remove Designs Remove Inventor Remove Ownership Remove Patent Application
article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court rules on AI and Patent Applications

IP Tech Blog

The grounds for the court’s decision was the definition of “inventor” under the Patents Act 1977 (the Act ) which requires the inventor of a patent to be a natural person. So for the moment, the position under the UK patent system is that AI is very much a tool rather than an autonomous agent in its own right.

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court rules on AI and Patent Applications

LexBlog IP

The grounds for the court’s decision was the definition of “inventor” under the Patents Act 1977 (the Act ) which requires the inventor of a patent to be a natural person. The court unanimously found that AI cannot.

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 by Kevin Ahlstrom: Closing the Gender Innovation Gap with Guided Inventor Sessions

Patently-O

– Jason) Guided invention sessions not only increase idea submission rates but also transform individuals’ perception of themselves as inventors. By creating a supportive environment and equipping participants with the necessary tools, these sessions pave the way for gender equality in patenting.

Inventor 129
article thumbnail

Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything?

The IPKat

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?

article thumbnail

[Guest post] Ownership of IP rights by DAOs – the future is nigh?

The IPKat

Here's what Marianna writes: Ownership of IP rights by DAOs – the future is nigh? Ownership of IP In a recent curious example, Spice DAO paid $3 million for an original 1975 copy of the Dune bible by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Such ownership sometimes arises “automatically” when a work has been created in the course of employment.

Ownership 134
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

Reversing what seemed like a victory for supporters of AI-owned intellectual property, the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia has confirmed the majority view of the world: only human inventors can own patent rights to their creations. This signals a shift in Canadian attitudes towards AI ownership of their work.

Invention 111
article thumbnail

Joint Inventorship: AI-Human Style

Patently-O

The key takeaway here is that the USPTO believes that an AI-developed invention is patentable so long as a human satisfies the joint-inventorship standard of “significantly contributing to the invention.” patents and patent applications. According to the USPTO, each claim needs to have a human inventor.

Inventor 119