article thumbnail

AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

Intellectual Property Law Blog

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.

Inventor 130
article thumbnail

AI as an Inventing Tool – it’s Implications for Patent Law

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Berkely Center for Law & Technology is hosting a great half-day virtual-conference this week: “AI as an Inventing Tool – it’s Implications for Patent Law” organized by Prof. Importantly, LLMs know the references and have their key points accessible for dynamic consideration and analysis.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Reasoning Regarding the Board’s anticipation finding,Incept first argued on appeal that the Board committed legal error because it engaged in a “patchwork approach” that involved “picking and choosing” from Wallace’s different teachings to piece together the elements of the ’723 patent claims. Relying on Eli Lilly & Co. 4th 679, 692 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Ikorongo Challenges Federal Circuit’s Heightened “Same Invention” Requirement for Reissue Patents

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Ikorongo Technology has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s heightened disclosure standard for the “same invention” requirement in reissue patents. The petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit’s test, established in Antares Pharma, Inc.

article thumbnail

Thaler v. Comptroller-General: Supreme Court Affirms that an AI Cannot be an Inventor under UK Patent Law

Intepat

This section mandates that a patent applicant must identify the inventor and, if the applicant is not the inventor, explain how they derived the right to the patent. Mr. Thaler’s stance was clear: DABUS, as the AI behind the inventions, should be recognized as the inventor.

article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The referring decision and much of the surrounding commentary to G 2/21 also focused on the terminology of plausibility, which is also often used in the biotech field ( IPKat ).

article thumbnail

Stay on Target: Proper Obviousness Analysis Requires Focus on Claimed Invention

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch If you break it down far enough, every invention is simply a combination of known materials or steps. In Axonics, the court ruled that the obviousness analysis must focus on the motivation to combine references to reach the claimed invention, not motivation to combine for some other purpose described in the prior art.