USPTO Issues Additional Guidance on Use of AI Tools in Connection with USPTO Matters
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by James Gatto
1w ago
The USPTO issued guidance on February 6, 2024 that clarified existing rules and policies and discussed how to apply them when AI is used in the drafting of submissions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As a follow up, the USPTO has now published additional guidance in the Federal Register on some important issues that patent and trademark professionals, innovators, and entrepreneurs must navigate while using artificial intelligence (AI) in matters before the USPTO. The guidance recognizes that practitioners use AI to pr ..read more
Visit website
2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by Jesse Salen and James Hurt
2w ago
We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we introduced in Spring 2023, which was very well received. In this report, we have attempted to classify and summarize every precedential opinion or order regarding patent cases issued by the Federal Circuit last year. Click here to read more ..read more
Visit website
The USPTO and USCO Delivered a Report to Congress on IP Issues with NFTs – Maintains Existing IP Regime
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by James Gatto
1M ago
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the United States Copyright Office (“USCO”) delivered a report to Congress entitled Non-Fungible Tokens and Intellectual Property on March 12, 2024 (“Report”). While the Report is comprehensive, it does not recommend any new action to address IP issues with NFTs. The Report looked at: i) current and future applications of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”); ii) how intellectual property laws apply to NFTs and assets associated with NFTs; iii) intellectual property-related challenges arising from the use of NFTs; and iv) potential ..read more
Visit website
Federal Circuit Concluded that Operating Manuals Subject to Confidentiality Restrictions are Prior Art Printed Publication
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by Paul Chang and Yu Pan*
2M ago
In Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Techs., Inc., Nos. 2022-1751, 2022-1813 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s legal conclusion that Weber’s operating manuals were not prior art printed publications based on the public accessibility of the operating manuals. Background In response to an infringement case filed by Provisur, Weber filed two inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions to invalidate two patents owned by Provisur, based on Weber’s operating manuals and additional references, which the Board instituted. Weber, slip op., pp. 2, 6. The two pate ..read more
Visit website
AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by Yang Li
2M ago
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law. On February 13, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a long-anticipated Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions. The Guidance explains the USPTO’s position on inventorship issues as artificial intelligence systems play a greater role in the innovation process. According to the Guidance, th ..read more
Visit website
Federal Circuit Rebukes Attempt to Incorporate Arguments by Reference to a Related IPR Petition
Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog
by Sofya Asatryan
2M ago
In Medronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited, 2022-1721, 2022-1722 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2023), the Federal Circuit considered whether U.S. Patent RE46,116 (“the ’116 patent”) was entitled to an alleged priority date sufficient to moot Medtronic’s asserted pre-AIA §102(e) prior art reference, which depended on whether Medtronic had waived its challenged to Teleflex’s asserted priority date by attempting to incorporate those arguments by reference in its Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions, and whether the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) correctly found that Teleflex suffici ..read more
Visit website
A
by
ago
A ..read more
Visit website
A
by
ago
A ..read more
Visit website
A
by
ago
A ..read more
Visit website
A
by
ago
A ..read more
Visit website

Follow Darren Franklin | Intellectual Property Law Blog on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR