article thumbnail

De Forest Radio v. GE: A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on the Invention Requirement

Patently-O

By Dennis Crouch In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. 103 as part of the Patent Act of 1952, it nonetheless applied a similar requirement for “invention.” 101, all under the general rubric of the “invention” requirement.

article thumbnail

Only Humans are Inventive?

Patently-O

Patent Act was amended in 2011 to expressly require that inventors be “individuals.” In the case, Thaler claims to own a computer named DABUS, and that DABUS conceived-of two patentable inventions. Thaler argued that the PTO was, in fact, refusing to issue a patent because the invention was made by an AI rather than a human.

Invention 100
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

The America Invents Act, Ten Years After Enactment - Part 1: “First Inventor to File”

JD Supra Law

Ten years ago, on September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) became law. This article is the second in a multi-part series of articles on the significant changes introduced by the AIA and the results of those changes. By: Nexsen Pruet, PLLC

Invention 116
article thumbnail

Celebrating (?) the America Invents Act: Ten Years On, Many IP Stakeholders Say it’s Time for a Second Look

IP Watchdog

During IPWatchdog LIVE 2021 in Dallas, Texas, I asked a handful of willing attendees for their thoughts on the impact of the America Invents Act (AIA) in anticipation of today, the ten-year anniversary of the day President Barack Obama signed the AIA into law. innovation. innovation. patent laws.

Invention 125
article thumbnail

USPTO Delivers Inventorship Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions

IP Intelligence

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its much anticipated Inventorship Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions (“Guidance”). [1] The Guidance strives to ensure balance between protecting and incentivizing AI-assisted inventions and not hindering future human innovation, as “the patent system is designed to encourage human ingenuity.” [2]

article thumbnail

Stay on Target: Proper Obviousness Analysis Requires Focus on Claimed Invention

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch If you break it down far enough, every invention is simply a combination of known materials or steps. In Axonics, the court ruled that the obviousness analysis must focus on the motivation to combine references to reach the claimed invention, not motivation to combine for some other purpose described in the prior art.

article thumbnail

America Invents Act, Ten Years After Enactment

JD Supra Law

The Leahy-Smith “America Invents Act” (hereinafter, “AIA”) was signed into law ten years ago, on September 16, 2011. We have learned extensively from the enactment and this article is part of a series of lessons learned. By: Nexsen Pruet, PLLC