Art Inventor Ownership Patent Application 
The IP Law Blog
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
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. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). The court in Pannu v.
The IPKat
AUGUST 11, 2023
In keeping with the so-called media "silly season" of late summer, PatKat thought she would check-in on the AI inventor debate. 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.
LexBlog IP
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
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. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). Also, Howard was not named as an inventor.
IPilogue
NOVEMBER 1, 2021
In July 2021, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 that artificial intelligence (AI) systems may be deemed “inventors” under Australian patent law. The principal question at hand is whether non-human entities, such as AI systems, should have legal capacity.
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
The key takeaway here is that the USPTO believes that an AI-developed invention is patentable so long as a human satisfies the joint-inventorship standard of “significantly contributing to the invention.” patents and patent applications. According to the USPTO, each claim needs to have a human inventor.
Patently-O
DECEMBER 13, 2023
The decision cements that for OTDP analysis, any comparison of unexpected results or long-felt need must be made to the applicant’s own earlier patent claims, not the closest “prior art.” The policy goal is to prevent unjustified timewise extension of exclusive patent rights. In re: Institut Pasteur , No.
SpicyIP
AUGUST 9, 2021
In this post, I will be analysing the recommendations pertaining to the amendment of patent laws in order to facilitate inventorship and ownership by AI. I will be restricting the discussion to the evaluation of the Indian patent regime, as the implications of AI on Indian copyright law has been previously dealt with here.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
110 
Let's personalize your content