The IPKat
FEBRUARY 16, 2024
This is a book review of Teaching Intellectual Property Law: Strategy and Management edited by Sabine Jacques, Associate Professor in Information Technology, Media and Intellectual Property Law, University of East Anglia Law School and Ruth Soetendorp, Visiting Academic, City University of London and Professor Emerita, Bournemouth University.
IPilogue
SEPTEMBER 3, 2021
Under patent law, it is the general expectation that inventors are humans, not robots. Dr. Stephen Thaler created DABUS (‘Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’), an artificial neural system, and claimed that DABUS was the sole inventor of the patentable invention. Patent Law in Canada.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 13, 2021
Over to the Professors: "There is an increasing influential and bludgeoning legal literature on how artificial intelligence (AI) systems should be treated in law. One question that has recently been in the headlines around the world, thanks to the Artificial Inventor Project, is whether or not an AI system can be regarded 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. found in paragraph 10 of the Thaler decision: “First, an inventor is an agent noun; an agent can be a person or thing that invents.
IPilogue
JUNE 2, 2022
Reversing what seemed like a victory for supporters of AI-owned intellectual property, the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia has confirmed the majority view of the world: only human inventors can own patent rights to their creations. This signals a shift in Canadian attitudes towards AI ownership of their work.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
Prior to Bayh-Dole, some federal agencies had patent policies which required grant recipients to give ownership of resulting patents to the government. In October 1996, the provisional application to which the ’094 patent claims priority was filed and the two inventors of the ’094 patent assigned their rights in the invention to USF.
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. §
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
113 
Let's personalize your content