article thumbnail

Inventor Says AI Art Merits Copyright Despite US Gov't Stance

IP Law 360

An artificial intelligence inventor has bashed the U.S. Copyright Office's arguments that art created by his AI system is not copyrightable because the machine is not human, telling the D.C.

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. The Guidance begins with the premise that only natural persons can be named as inventors on U.S. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. Principle No.

Inventor 130
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

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Swearing Behind a Prior Art Reference

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Patent 7,736,355 (“the ’355 patent”) does not qualify as prior art to related U.S. Medtronics filed five IPR petitions using the ’355 patent as the primary prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L. , The Board concluded that Medtronic failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable.

Art 147
article thumbnail

All Inventors are Human; All Humans are Inventors

Patently-O

Vidal ask the Supreme Court one simple question: Does the Patent Act categorically restrict the statutory term ‘inventor’ to human beings alone? The basic idea here is that we have a public policy goal of encouraging innovation and invention, “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” In the U.S.,

Inventor 120
article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. Unitherm”), argued that it had rights to the patent because its president was an inventor and should be added to the patent. Also, Howard was not named as an inventor. The court in Pannu v.

Inventor 110
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

Patenting with Artificial Inventors

LexBlog IP

Vidal , a Federal Court of Appeals case that determined whether AI can be listed as an inventor on a patent application. In this case, Dr. Stephen Thaler created an AI program that he listed as the only inventor on two US patent applications. The USPTO rejected these applications for lack of a proper inventor. prior art).