Remove is-software-patentable
article thumbnail

Patent Protection on AI Inventions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

In recent years, AI patent activity has exponentially increased. The figure below shows the volume of public AI patent applications categorized by AI component in the U.S. AI patent activities by year. Inventors and patent attorneys often face the challenge of effectively protecting new AI technology development.

Invention 242
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.

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

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

SpicyIP

Controller of Patents decision on the role of PSITA in determining non obviousness, we are pleased to bring to you this post by Kevin Preji. This post attempts to critically analyse the relevance of difference in the purported function of the invention and prior art to determine non-obviousness in identifying the inventive step.

Invention 111
article thumbnail

Generative AI and Patent Considerations – Part Two

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Industry stalwarts and startups alike have launched generative models that can create new text, images, video, 3D models, and even software code — with the promise of more powerful and disruptive innovations to soon follow. Patent strategies should reflect the current legal landscape as well as anticipate potential future legal developments.

Patent 130
article thumbnail

Why including an “Algorithm” is Important for Software Patents (Part 2)

LexBlog IP

PatentNext Summary: In some instances, software-based patent applications can fail to include a sufficient algorithm describing “how” the software interacts with the underlying hardware of the invention. Therefore, as a general rule, software-related patents should include an algorithm.

article thumbnail

AI Systems May Invent, But Are They Inventors?

The IP Law Blog

Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has found that a non-human may infringe patents. Arguably, an AI system, which is a non-human, can also create or invent. But can an AI system be a named inventor on a patent? Patent Appl. Thaler, assignee, filed U.S. 16/524,350 (“the ’350 Appl.”)

article thumbnail

Canons and Canards: Recreating Prior Art

Patently-O

275 (1892) (aka, The Barbed Wire Patent Cases ); and. in Juicy Whip I , the court rejected a contention that the invention lacked utility because of its stated intent of deceiving the public. Both of these cases relate to the type of evidence available to invalidate issued patents. Beat ‘Em All Barbed-Wire Co.,

Art 77