LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 18, 2024
As an inventor, there’s nothing more thrilling than having a big corporation take interest in your idea. What if the company decides to sever ties or even worse, continue using your invention without your permission? What if the company decides to sever ties or even worse, continue using your invention without your permission?
IP Law 360
AUGUST 22, 2022
Invention marketing firm InventHelp and its associated companies have agreed to pay $3 million to resolve inventors' class claims that the company duped them into buying pricey plans that didn't always deliver, according to a proposed settlement filed in Pennsylvania federal court.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SpicyIP
AUGUST 9, 2021
According to WIPO’s Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence , AI-generated works refers to any inventions created by AI without any human intervention. ‘AI An important question that arises is can AI actually invent on its own?
IP Watchdog
JUNE 27, 2023
Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on “Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-Count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board [PTAB]” was Tuesday, June 20.
Intepat
MAY 4, 2023
When an inventor is granted exclusive rights over their inventions for a specific period of time, it provides a return on their investment in terms of time, resources and capital. The idea that a specific invention will allow the inventor to reap benefits has a direct effect on incentivising inventors to create and invent more.
IPilogue
APRIL 22, 2022
This article delves into the legal doctrines that support the parties’ claims and the overarching strategy to their settlement. The doctrine of equivalents prevents parties from circumventing literal infringement by making minor variations to a patented invention. In the end, settlement was in the best interests of both parties.
Patently-O
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Like the dissenting judge on the panel, several of the opinions denying rehearing en banc faulted the panel majority for establishing a new “nothing more” test—if the claimed invention “clearly invokes a natural law, and nothing more, to accomplish a desired result”—for patent ineligibility. at 1366 (O’Malley J., dissenting); id.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content