Confidentiality Invention Public Use Reference 
Trading Secrets
APRIL 18, 2023
API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.
LexBlog IP
APRIL 18, 2023
API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
LexBlog IP
APRIL 18, 2023
API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. enablement). Thankfully, the U.S.
Patently-O
AUGUST 13, 2021
The 1836 Patent Act added the caveat that no patent should issue on an invention previously “described in any printed publication.” A new petition asks the court to examine the phrase again and help define when a document crosses the publication threshold. 102(a)(1). Centripetal Networks, Inc. 869, 877 (Fed.
The IPKat
MAY 15, 2023
The Opponent submitted evidence of alleged prior use in the form of the insulin injection pen ( GensuPen ). The Opponent argued that the claimed invention lacked novelty in view of the prior use of the GensuPen ( Article 54(2) EPC ). The Opposition Division (OD) found that the alleged prior use was not sufficiently proven.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 22, 2023
Another source of confusion is the divergent approaches of the UK courts and the EPO with respect to the test for the evidence standard in sufficiency and inventive step analysis. Readers looking for some clarity on G 2/21 may wish to skip straight to the recent referring Board's interpretation of G 2/21 in T 0116/18. Food for thought.
The IP Law Blog
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
This month the Federal Circuit decided a case involving whether the display of a flowering plant constitutes an invalidating prior public use. Attendees had no confidentiality obligations and “were not provided any gene or breeding information.” Under those facts, the Federal Circuit determined there was no prior public use.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content