Remove Designs Remove Inventor Remove Patent Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court Rules that AI cannot be an ‘Inventor’ Under UK Patent Law

JD Supra Law

In Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49, the UK Supreme Court ruled that AI cannot be an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of UK patent law.

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

Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch In a highly anticipated en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents. Rejecting the argument that KSR did not implicate design patent obviousness, the court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § GM Global Tech. Operations LLC , No.

article thumbnail

Design Patent Bar Now Reality

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The USPTO is officially establishing a separate design patent practitioner bar with its final rule published on November 16, 2023 and effective January 2, 2024. Currently, a single patent bar governs registration for anyone seeking to practice before the USPTO in utility, plant, and design patent matters.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit asked to Decide whether US Patent Law Excludes Non-Human Inventors

Patently-O

Thaler filed for patent protection, but refused to name himself as the inventor — although he created DABUS, these particular inventions did not originate in his mind. The USPTO rejected the applications — explaining US patents must name a human inventor. Now the case is pending before the Federal Circuit.

Inventor 126
article thumbnail

Artificial intelligence is not breaking patent law: EPO publishes DABUS decision (J 8/20)

The IPKat

The EPO Board of Appeal has published its full decision on the question of whether a machine can be an inventor ( J 8/20 ). The Board of Appeal had previously announced its decision to refuse two European patent applications naming an algorithm ("DABUS") as the sole inventor at the end of last year ( IPKat ).

article thumbnail

The Legacy of A.B. Dick and Motion Picture Patents: How these 100+ Year Old Ruling Reshaped Patent Law

Patently-O

as a major turning point in American patent and antitrust law. The Court’s 4-3 decision favored the patentee and allowed the patent owner to place restrictions on the use of its patented product even after sale. Just a few years later, the Supreme Court reversed course in Motion Picture Patents Co.