|Posted on August 22, 2019 at 6:00 PM||comments (0)|
British researchers are claiming that an artificial intellgence (AI) system invented both a complex system for interlocking food containers as well as a new warning light. The researchers have filed patents in the US as well as other countries, claiming the AI as the inventor. This would be the first time AI is credited as the inventor... patent agencies will have to determine whether a tool constructed by humans can invent on its own. And if AI is deemed a true inventor entity, how will this impact other areas of intellectual property law?
|Posted on September 26, 2018 at 11:50 AM||comments (0)|
USPTO Director Iancu recently proposed new patent eligibility guidelines at the quarterly meeting of the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC). Iancu noted that clarity is needed both by examiners and applicants asking, "how can a claim be novel enough to pass 102 and nonobvious enough to pass 103, yet lack an "inventive concept" and therefore fail 101? Or, how can a claim be concrete enough so that one of skill in the art can make it without undue experimentation, and pass 112, yet abstract enough to fail 101? How can something concrete be abstract?" Hopefully the new guidelines will address these issues and give some much needed clarity.
|Posted on August 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM||comments (0)|
Drug company Allergan transferred its Restasis drug patents to a Mohawk tribe in upstate NY. Under the deal, Allergan paid the Indian tribe $13.75 million and agreed to further payment of $15 million in annual royalties while the patents were in force. In exchange, the tribe agreed to lease the patents back to Allergan and promised to claim sovereign immunity in any USPTO patent challenges. Under the law, Indian tribes possess inherent sovereignty; however, this sovereignty may be limited through treaty or federal statute. Additionally, Congress possesses plenary power over tribes, allowing it to alter or abolish tribal sovereignty at will. The US Supreme Court recently held that Indian tribes cannot use sovereign immunity to shield themselves from patent challenges brought within the USPTO. The court did not decide whether sovereign immunity claims could be used by states.
|Posted on July 5, 2018 at 11:10 AM||comments (0)|
The Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiori in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. The court will be asked to determine whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) bars an inventor from selling to a third party when that third party has a duty of confidentiality to the seller. Such an "on-sale" bar would prevent the inventor or assignee from filing a patent for that invention.
Update: Supreme Court holds that that a secret sale qualifies as prior art.
|Posted on June 30, 2018 at 9:05 AM||comments (0)|
Patent No. 10,000,000 was issued on June 19, 2018 to inventor Joseph Marron and the Raytheon Company for a “Coherent LADAR Using Intra-Pixel Quadrature Detection.” The device is designed to improve laser detection and ranging (LADAR).
|Posted on November 15, 2017 at 6:00 PM||comments (0)|
"Threatening" a potential infringer for acts performed in the UK will now be govered by a new Intellectual Property Unjustified Threats Act. The act took effect on October 1, 2017 and outlines "permitted communications" between potential adversaries in patent, trademark and designs. It should be noted that the act will not apply to copyright infringements, assertions of passing off or trade secret actions. CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE
|Posted on January 26, 2017 at 8:45 AM||comments (0)|
A recent Forbes article notes that nearly 1500 utility and plant patent applications have been filed since 1942. Half of those applications were filed in the last 25 years and there are 500 active patent applications for cannabis related products. The data shows that about half of these applications have been approved. CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE
|Posted on May 20, 2016 at 11:00 AM||comments (0)|
Google has recently submitted a patent for a device injected directly into the eye. The device contains storage, sensors, a radio, abattery and an electronic lens and is powered wirelessly from an “energy harvesting antenna.”
|Posted on March 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM||comments (0)|
There is a lack of certainty when it comes to intellectual property rights in outer space. Space Law is generally uniform in its application while intellectual property law varies from country to country. What happens when a patent is infringed in outer space? Currently, nothing as patent laws apply only within the territory of the granting country. And because the standards of copyright infringement vary from country to country there is an additional uncertainty of what artistic expression is protectable in space. This is an area of the law that will require attention as our presence in space grows. CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE
|Posted on January 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM||comments (1)|
The recent US Supreme Court decision of Alice v. CLS Bank has specificed a Section 101 framework in which software patents must now be examined. The court has enumerated two questions that must be asked in a software patent:
1. Does the claim merely cover an “abstract idea”?
2. Is there an (additional) “inventive concept” that turns this idea into a patentable application of the abstraction?
This decision does not elliminate the possibility of software patents but certainly leaves their patentability uncertain and open to challenge.
The recent case of Motio Inc. vs. Avnet Inc. has provided one example of how to circumvent this issue. In that case the court found the that the "inventive concept" was an "automated agent" eligible for patent protection.