Remove 2007 Remove Invention Remove Litigation Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The Board of Appeal in T 2803/18 , in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: The AIA at Ten – How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?

Patently-O

Chien, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, and Janelle Barbier and Obie Reynolds, both second-year JD students; all at Santa Clara University School of Law. We address these questions empirically by analyzing the effective dates of patents and patent applications currently being litigated or pursued.

Art 125
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

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: The AIA at Ten – How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?

Patently-O

Chien, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, and Janelle Barbier and Obie Reynolds, both second-year JD students; all at Santa Clara University School of Law. We address these questions empirically by analyzing the effective dates of patents and patent applications currently being litigated or pursued.

article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. The settlement also included a license to thousands of Qualcomm patents. Genentech, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. Many of us have said, “Bacon makes everything better.” The court in Pannu v. Iolab Corp.

Inventor 110
article thumbnail

New PatentlyO L.J. Article: What Every Patent and Trademark lawyer Should Understand About the MPEP, TMEP, and Other Guidance

Patently-O

Read : David Boundy, What Every Patent and Trademark Lawyer Should Understand About the MPEP, TMEP, and Other Guidance: How to Use (and Defend Against) the MPEP to be a Better Advocate , 2023 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (2023) ( Boundy.2021.HowToUseGuidance Prior Patently-O Patent L.J. Pre-AIAPatents ).

article thumbnail

Vanda Seeks Supreme Court Review on Lower Standard for Obviousness

Patently-O

398 (2007). KSR ‘s language is built on longstanding precedent that an invention cannot be considered obvious if, at the time it was made, it would not have been “perfectly plain” or “immediately recognizable” to one skilled in the art. The Supreme Court has not addressed obviousness standards since its 2007 decision in KSR.

Art 80