article thumbnail

Only Humans are Inventive?

Patently-O

Patent Law, because the U.S. Patent Act was amended in 2011 to expressly require that inventors be “individuals.” In its newest decision on the topic, the Federal Circuit declares instead, for the purposes of patent law, an inventor must be human. The word individual is important for U.S. 35 U.S.C. §

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. patent laws. innovation.

Invention 124
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

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. The case involved a patent infringement suit over an improved vacuum tube used in radio communications. Background The patent at issue, U.S. General Electric Co. , 571 (1931).

article thumbnail

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

Patently-O

DABUS created two separate inventions — a “Neural Flame” and “Fractal Container.” 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. Thaler created an AI system that he calls DABUS. Thaler Brief.

Inventor 126
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

Today in Patent Law Class: Markman v. Westview Instruments

Patently-O

Today in Patent Law Class, we covered the Supreme Court’s important decision in Markman v. 370 (1996) focusing on the question of whether the patentee has a 7th Amendment right to have a jury decide “genuine factual disputes about the meaning of a patent?” 91, 114 (2011) (Breyer, J, concurring).

article thumbnail

Supreme Court on Patent Law: November 2023

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court is set to consider several significant patent law petitions addressing a range of issues from the application of obviousness standards, challenges to PTAB procedures, interpretation of joinder time limits IPR, to the proper scope patent eligibility doctrine. 1, at 48 (2011). 112–98, pt.