Remove topics inventive-concept-test
article thumbnail

Sanderling Management v. Snap Inc. No. 21-2173 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) Alice – 35 U.S.C. § 101

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Topic This case addresses patent eligibility under Alice and whether the district court should have afforded the patent owner leave to amend its complaint. Issue(s) Whether the district court oversimplified the claims under step one of the Alice tests. The district court further denied Sanderling’s motion for reconsideration.

Invention 130
article thumbnail

Only Humans are Inventive?

Patently-O

In its newest decision on the topic, the Federal Circuit declares instead, for the purposes of patent law, an inventor must be human. In the case, Thaler claims to own a computer named DABUS, and that DABUS conceived-of two patentable inventions. Patent Act was amended in 2011 to expressly require that inventors be “individuals.”

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

Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness

Patently-O

.” Before Graham and the 1952 Act, the courts had ground their obviousness analysis in the statutory requirement of “invention” and the Constitutional purpose to “promote the Progress.” Flexibility in the scope of the prior art also extends to the analogous arts test.

Art 121
article thumbnail

Evolving Perspectives: USPTO Call for Comments on Patent Eligibility Comes to a Close (Part 1)

IPilogue

Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) closed the public comment period on the contentious topic of patent eligibility. While a vast realm of things can be patented, software and medical devices are frequently hot topics when discussing patent eligibility. Precedent: Alice/Mayo test . On October 15, 2021, the U.S Current State.

Patent 105
article thumbnail

USPTO Requests Input on Patent Eligibility from Critical Sectors Impacted by Current Law

The IP Law Blog

To determine whether claims are patent-eligible the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test in Mayo as further explained in Alice. This test consists of the following steps: Step 1: The court determines whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.

Law 109
article thumbnail

Do you have to list an Artificial Intelligence (AI) as an inventor or joint inventor on a Patent Application?

LexBlog IP

If such new content forms part of a new “invention” (i.e., It may all come down to “conception” – that is, whether an AI system can mentally conceive and contribute to an invention. Conception is important because, at least under U.S. an invention). an invention). patent law.

article thumbnail

Use of large language models in the patent industry: A risk to patent quality?

The IPKat

Remarkably, ChatGPT and its cohorts are now capable of passing the famous Turing test , such that text generated by ChatGPT cannot be readily identified as being written by an AI as opposed to a human, as any teacher struggling to identify AI-assisted essays will tell you.