Rejection of patent applications with Artificial Intelligence (AI) designated as inventor is at the
center of a heated ownership debate and will continue until some resolution is arrived at. In
August 2019, the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected two (2) patent applications with AI
named as the inventor namely, EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina filed a complaint in Federal Court accusing Anheuser-Busch, LLC and one of its distributors of using the tribe’s trademarks without permission in promoting and selling alcoholic beverages.
Unfortunately, in today’s world a single day does not go by without reading about a cybersecurity breach somewhere around the globe, whether related to commercial operations, industry, government units, healthcare institutions, financial entities, political parties, and personal data.
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. DTSA amends chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the “Espionage Act of 1996”) to provide federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets “if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Two deadly crashes occurred in less than six months involving Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplanes. All Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplanes were grounded earlier in the month of March 2019 when one of Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET302 crashed within a short period after take-off, taking a steep nosedive. The fatal accident claimed the lives of all 157 people onboard.
I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act commonly referred to as “AIA” was enacted into law (P.L. 112-29). President Barack Obama signed the AIA, which represented more than eight years of considerable effort to modernize the U.S. patent system.
Most small businesses fail to take advantage of various tax benefits available to them, most notably in the area of tax credits.
A quantum computer uses photons that exhibit quantum effects as the underlying transport mechanism whereas a digital computer uses electrons and/or the absence of electrons as the underlying transport mechanism. A classical computer has a memory made-up of bits (0, 1) where each bit represents a one or zero. A quantum computer maintains a sequence of qubits.
This report addresses disavowal of claim scope2. When Is the Scope of a Claim Disavowed? To
shed some light on this issue, we look to the latest precedential decision of the CAFC as
excerpted below. This case illustrates the reason why practitioners ought to be very careful when
characterizing the prior art in drafting a patent application and in answering office actions during
prosecution.
On December 12, 2019, the CAFC rendered a precedential decision in the matter styled
“Techtronic Industries Co. LTD., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc, One World
Technologies, Inc., OWT Industries, Inc., ET Technology (WUXI) Co. LTD., Appellants v.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Appellee and The Chamberlain Group, Inc., Intervenor.”
SUCCESS Act of 2018 – Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success.
In these unprecedented times at the height of a global outcry for justice and equity, it is relevant and timely to address the subject of “equity” in the Intellectual Property (IP) ecosystem, because IP did not escape nor spared by the culture of injustice, discrimination and inequality that permeates most religious and secular institutions. Ironically, were it not for technology, the video of George Floyd’s murder would not have had such catalyst effect on the global conscience regarding the injustice certain ethnic groups are subjected to.
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit decided Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, et al. In 2012, Enfish filed suit against Microsoft in the district court of California, alleging that Microsoft’s ADO.NET product infringes several patents related to Enfish patented “self-referential” database.
In view of the recent decision of In Re Petus A.C.M. Nuijten, signal claims are deemed directed to non-statutory subject matter and thus, not eligible for patent protection. This decision, however, appears to be inconsistent with precedents and the intent of Congress.
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. The case was first brought in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that Cuozzo’s claims 10, 14 and 17 were obvious in light of three (3) prior art patents.
Honorable Senator Coons,
We followed with great interest the hearings of the Senate IP (Intellectual Property) Subcommittee regarding proposed changes to 35 USC Section 101. We have also reviewed the proposed amendment to same. We believe that the proposed amendment fixes most of the problems battled by the courts, the USPTO and the patent community in general in the past years. However, the proposed amendment does not address two categories of claims that should be patent eligible under 35 USC Section 101, which the courts have deemed patent ineligible. These categories are: (1) the so-called signal claims and (2) software claims.
Unfortunately, in today’s world a single day does not go by without reading about a cybersecurity breach somewhere around the globe, whether related to commercial operations, industry, government units, healthcare institutions, financial entities, political parties, and personal data.
Government Publications
As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2012, facilitating the dissemination of creative expression is an important means of fulfilling the constitutional mandate to “promote the Progress of Science” through the copyright system.
To strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading inno-vator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy.
As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2012, facilitating the dissemination of creative expression is an important means of fulfilling the constitutional mandate to “promote the Progress of Science” through the copyright system.