article thumbnail

“Asexual Reproduction Prohibited”? Plant Propagation and Patent Law

IPilogue

PBRs are not patents, but a lower-cost, more accessible mode of protecting legal rights without seeking exclusive ownership of a “ higher life form. Candidates are published in the Canadian government’s Plant Varieties Journal and held to industry scrutiny.

article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee’s Recommendations Concerning AI and IP: A Little Late or Way too Early?

SpicyIP

In this post, I will be analysing the recommendations pertaining to the amendment of patent laws in order to facilitate inventorship and ownership by AI. I will be restricting the discussion to the evaluation of the Indian patent regime, as the implications of AI on Indian copyright law has been previously dealt with here.

Invention 122
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

Book Review: The Artificial Inventor - A Challenge for the Patent System

The IPKat

The challenges presented by this state of affairs, including whether ‘artificial agents’ can be considered inventors, patent their inventions, and enjoy the benefit of patent ownership – and how their inventions would be evaluated against established human rules in the first place, are considered in this book.

Inventor 140
article thumbnail

Standing to Challenge Inventorship

Patently-O

In patent law, inventorship is tied directly to ownership. An inventor is a presumptive owner of any resulting patent rights. However, those inchoate rights are assignable in a way that decouples inventorship and ownership. arising from his work on the endeavor.

article thumbnail

Book Review: The Future of Intellectual Property

The IPKat

The individual rights-based regime neglects the collective identity and duties arising from ownership. Li proposes redefining the nature of IP ownership through the lens of collective duties with a view to optimising the use of IP rights. And now she has our full attention. The first (chapter 7), by Dan L.

article thumbnail

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

The IPKat

If we ignore the red-herring of the DABUS case however, it is clear that the commercially relevant question raised by the possibility of AI inventorship is not inventorship, but ownership. It is the owner of an invention, and not the inventor who reaps the rewards of patent protection.

article thumbnail

Bayh Dole-esque Guidelines Notified by Dept of Biotechnology

SpicyIP

The thrust of the Guidelines appear to be coming from the 2022 Report on Commercializing Intellectual Property from Public Funded Research (Attached as Annexure A to the Guidelines) published by the DBT and authored by a 9 member committee chaired by Prof Raghavan Varadarajan, (IISc).