Invention Related Topics 
Intellectual Property Law Blog
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
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. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. 101 and 115.
JD Supra Law
NOVEMBER 21, 2024
of the Chinese Patent Law prescribes that: inventiveness means that, as compared with the prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents a notable progress. Article 22.3 By: Linda Liu & Partners
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The IPKat
OCTOBER 31, 2024
The recent case T 2510/18 considered whether an invention derived from traditional remedies by dishonest means was immoral. The objections related not to the direct exploitation of the invention itself, but to the alleged dishonesty and breach of trust associated with how the invention was derived.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 13, 2023
The case related to the novelty and inventive step of a second medical use claim. The Board of Appeal considered the appropriate application of EPO case law on the novelty of dosage regimes and selection inventions, and the reliance on an unexpected technical effect for inventive step.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
FEBRUARY 21, 2024
patent application has a duty to disclose to the USPTO all information which is materially relevant in assessing the patentability of the invention. With the advent of such AI-assisted inventions, the USPTO is rethinking its requirements regarding the duty of disclosure. Everyone involved in the filing and prosecution of a U.S.
SpicyIP
AUGUST 29, 2024
Recently the MHC remanded a matter back to the Controller for re-consideration on whether the cited prior art would render the invention obvious in light of the explanation in the specification. Interestingly, the impugned order by the Controller has already held the invention to be obvious based on the claims filed by the applicant.
JD Supra Law
DECEMBER 4, 2024
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and thus the same “inventive entity,” as the challenged claims. By: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
130 
Let's personalize your content