article thumbnail

Vidal Designates Precedential PTAB Decision on Provisionals as Prior Art Under AIA

IP Watchdog

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today designated as precedential a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from March of this year that held a precedential U.S.

Art 98
article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.

Inventor 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Seeking Clarity on Comparison Prior Art: Seirus Petitions Supreme Court in Heat Wave Design Patent Dispute

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running design patent dispute with Columbia Sportswear. Questions presented: When looking for comparison prior art, is the article’s function relevant in any way? Must the comparison prior art be the “same article” as claimed? 511 (1871).

article thumbnail

Discerning Signal from Noise: Navigating the Flood of AI-Generated Prior Art

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity. The core task of patent examination is identifying quality prior art.

Art 109
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Rules on Written Description Requirement and Prior Art Statements Supporting a Motivation to Combine

Intellectual Property Law Blog

February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection. 4th 1323 (Fed.

Art 130
article thumbnail

Do generative AI inventions and works qualify for patents and copyrights? The Thaler and SURYAST decisions

Barry Sookman

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems and in particular generative AI (GenAI) systems have raised the question as to whether technical advances in the useful arts or synthetic content generated using these tools can qualify for patent or copyright protection. The Thaler and SURYAST decisions appeared first on Barry Sookman.

Invention 113
article thumbnail

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination?

SpicyIP

By Kevin Preji On 28th Feb, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in allowing an appeal, clarified the role of the ‘person skilled in the art’ (‘PSITA’) in determining non-obviousness. These lightweight messages do not require the writing and use of code.

Invention 105