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

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. And, the USPTO refused to issue a patent without a listed human inventor.

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

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
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] 1] The Guidance is retroactive, meaning it applies to all patent applications and issued patents filed before, on or after February 13, 2024. In Thaler v. 4] Based on U.S. 4] Based on U.S.

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

SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., No. 22-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)

Intellectual Property Law Blog

This case addresses certain implications of the Laehy-Smith America Invests Act (AIA), namely whether patents with a filing date after March 16, 2013 (pure AIA patents) may be part of an interference proceeding under pre-AIA, 35 U.S.C. § Background In 2011, Congress passed the AIA, which transformed the U.S.

Invention 162
article thumbnail

CAFC Says Pure Post-AIA Patents Are Not Subject to Interference Proceedings

IP Watchdog

Rockefeller University reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated all claims from five SNIPR patents.

Patent 52