Remove Inventor Remove Ownership Remove Patent Application Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

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

Intepat

Registration at UKIPO The case in question, originating in 2019, presents a groundbreaking legal dilemma: Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be acknowledged as an inventor for the purposes of patent ownership? Failing to comply would result in the application being considered withdrawn.

article thumbnail

Alleged Co-Inventor Not Bringing Home the Bacon This Time

The IP Law Blog

Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, challenging Hormel’s ownership and the inventorship of U.S. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”). The court in Pannu v.

Inventor 110
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything?

The IPKat

In keeping with the so-called media "silly season" of late summer, PatKat thought she would check-in on the AI inventor debate. The process of patent prosecution determines whether the application contains an invention that may be awarded a patent. Sceptical Kat Has DABUS invented?

article thumbnail

“Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors?” – The Max Planck Institute on Machine Autonomy and AI Patent Rights

IPilogue

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. The principal question at hand is whether non-human entities, such as AI systems, should have legal capacity.

Inventor 111
article thumbnail

Australia’s Reversal of its DABUS decision on AI-Generated Inventions: How Does this Impact an Imminent Canadian Discussion on AI Inventorship?

IPilogue

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.

Invention 111
article thumbnail

Patent Ownership in the United States - Best Practices to Preserve Your Rights

GDB Firm Blog

The issue of who actually owns a patent or pending patent application is obviously very important. This blog post will briefly explain how patent ownership works under US patent law, so inventors, managers, and other non-experts can better understand this important topic when working with a patent attorney.

article thumbnail

USPTO Request for Comments on AI as an Inventor

LexBlog IP

2022), in which the court ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) could not be an inventor by itself, the USPTO has now requested comments regarding AI and inventorship. More specifically, in Thaler , Stephan Thaler’s patent applications listed no humans as inventors, and rather listed his AI system, known as DABUS, as the inventor.