On October 6, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) released a report titled “Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual property Policy.” The report follows the USPTO’s August 2019 request for comments on patenting AI inventions, and the USPTO’s October 2019 request for comments related to the impact of
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published a decision on petition stating that an inventor must be a natural person, and denied Petitioner’s request to name an artificial intelligence entity as the inventor.
The inventor at issue is an artificial intelligence (AI) system named “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”
In Customedia Techs., LLC v. DISH Network Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions holding that claims 1-6, 8, 17, and 23 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,719,090 (the “’090 Patent”) and claims 1-4, 6-7, 16-19, 23-24, 26-28, 32-36, and 41 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,053, 494
Following on the heels of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s request for comments, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently released an issues paper on artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) policy. Comments may be submitted by February 14, 2020.
Continue Reading World Intellectual Property Organization Weighs in on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property
On August 22, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a request for comments on patenting artificial intelligence inventions. In addition to seeking general feedback from the public, the USPTO posed the following questions for comment:
The Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling today in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), holding that the United States Government is not a “person” eligible to petition for covered-business-method (“CBM”) review, inter partes review (“IPR”), or post-grant review (“PGR”) America Invents Act (“AIA”) proceedings before the
In its recent decision Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, No. 17-1135 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s ruling on Google’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
No matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant the advance, innovators in mathematical techniques, particularly in the finance field, may think twice about seeking patent protection in view of the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential Section 101 decision in SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018).
There, claim 1
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published new and updated guidelines on subject matter eligibility on February 5, 2018, including a quick reference sheet on decisions holding patent claims eligible and identifying abstract ideas, an index of examples, and a chart of subject matter eligibility court decisions.
One update to note in the