Remove Inventor Remove Litigation Remove Patent Remove Patent Prosecution
article thumbnail

To Make the U.S. Patent System More Efficient, Let’s Obviate Obviousness

IP Watchdog

Recovering money from users of technology requires movement on the part of inventors of technology. For example, receiving compensation from those who use patented designs without permission often requires patent owners (e.g., All of these movements require the inventor to possess a patent.

article thumbnail

CAFC ‘Unambiguously’ Backs USPTO in AI as Inventor Fight

IP Watchdog

Vidal that an artificial intelligence (AI) machine does not qualify as an inventor under the Patent Act. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled today in Thaler v. The decision is the latest in a series of rulings around the world considering the topic, most of which have found similarly.

Inventor 134
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

Principals Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse Author Managing IP Article “Coordinating Patent Prosecution in the U.S. and Europe”

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse examine the patentability requirements and prosecution schemes in the US and Europe and how applicants can prepare applications that will best serve their needs in both jurisdictions. However, different countries have different patentability requirements and prosecution schemes, and these differences.

article thumbnail

The Inventive Concept: Unclear Judicial Guidance Causes Frustration for Inventors

LexBlog IP

The Court’s denial of opportunities to clarify this issue has caused American inventors to unreasonably weigh the risk of disclosing their inventions against the uncertainty of acquiring a patent. In that case, the Federal Circuit affirmed that American Axle’s patent claim was patent ineligible as it violated 35 U.S.C. §

article thumbnail

Whither goest the patent troll?

The IPKat

A decade ago, patent trolls were all the rage in the patent world. If there was a rock-star matter in the patent world, it was the debate over trolls. It got this Kat to wonder: has patent trolling become such an ""oh so yesterday" subject? Patent Trolls, ?nd Patent trolling 2021—yes, no, or maybe?

article thumbnail

Keeping up with Belgian patent litigation: Year case law review 2021

The IPKat

The winds of a busy Belgian court term blows through the IPKat's wild ancestor's mane (c) Christopher Stothers 'Tis the season for a look at the cases that were in 2021 from around Europe and what they mean for the IP litigation themes in those jurisdictions now that the dust has settled in 2022. A new prohibition on double patenting?

article thumbnail

Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2022

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of six patents generally related to acoustic noise suppression functionalities. [1] Samsung argued that there were potential witnesses from non-party Samsung Research America (“SRA”), three of the five named inventors, prosecution counsel for the patents, and third-party AliphCom in the NDCA.