Art Invention Ownership Patent Prosecution 
Patently-O
JULY 22, 2022
In particular, the agreement required disclosure and assignment of “any ideas, conceptions, inventions, or plans relating to sleep, mattresses, bedding, sleep monitoring, health or wellness as it relates to sleep (including biometric monitoring relating to sleep), or bedroom or sleep technologies.” Young , 532 F. 3d 793, 798 (D.
The IPKat
AUGUST 11, 2023
PatKat has been sceptical about Dr Thaler and his purported inventing machine, DABUS, for some time ( IPKat ). In the pending European DABUS case ( EP4067251 ), DABUS's invention as originally claimed was found to lack novelty in view of 25 year old prior art. Sceptical Kat Has DABUS invented?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
DECEMBER 14, 2023
The applicant, Malvern, unsuccessfully traversed the rejection on the merits, but removed the ’175 patent from prior art consideration by arguing that § 103(c)(1) applied, due to common ownership. After a change in ownership, Malvern sought supplemental examination of the ’175 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts
JUNE 14, 2022
For example, companies pursuing patent protection in both the US and the EU should keep in mind a few key differences between these two jurisdictions to avoid losing valuable IP rights. Inventorship in the US is a critical component of patent ownership. Inventorship. Practice tip. Right of entitlement. Practice tip.
LexBlog IP
JUNE 3, 2022
CIPs are more difficult abroad because the parent applications of a CIP will be used as prior art against the CIP in those instances. Thus, the newly added subject matter of the CIP must independently be patentable (inventive and non-obvious) over the base subject matter that it shares with the parent application.
LexBlog IP
DECEMBER 14, 2023
The applicant, Malvern, unsuccessfully traversed the rejection on the merits, but removed the ’175 patent from prior art consideration by arguing that § 103(c)(1) applied, due to common ownership. After a change in ownership, Malvern sought supplemental examination of the ’175 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
SpicyIP
NOVEMBER 7, 2022
The Controller of Patents where it rebuked the Plaintiff for not filing written submissions in time and thereby delaying the patent application process. She highlights how the decision reiterates the importance of adhering to procedural tenets during patent prosecutions. Defendant no. Future Bath Products Private Ltd.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
78 
Let's personalize your content