Patents

Subscribe to Patents

PatentNext Takeaway: To date, the Federal Circuit has not reviewed many cases involving artificial intelligence (AI). However, in a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that a “machine learning” claim element lacked sufficient enablement because both the claim itself and the written description of the patent to which it belonged failed to describe “how” the claimed invention implemented this element.  In view of this ruling, patent practitioners should endeavor to explain sufficiently in the written description the specific aspects of how machine learning features (and other computer-implemented invention features) operate in order to demonstrate sufficient enablement.…

Continue Reading The Federal Circuit hints at Enablement requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventions

I am excited to announce the publication of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)’s article on “IP Aspects of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Technologies.” …

Continue Reading Announcing AIPLA article on Augmented Reality(AR) / Virtual Reality(VR): IP Aspects of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Technologies

In his petition for certiorari, Stephen Thaler had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit decision in which the court ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) could not be listed as the sole inventor.  However, the Supreme Court has now denied Thaler’s petition, and it is now effectively up to Congress to act to promote any change on the issue.  As Thaler noted in his petition, this issue is unlikely to be appealed to the Supreme Court again.   Particularly, the Federal Circuit has already denied en banc rehearing; additionally, the Federal Circuit is the only court of appeals with jurisdiction over questions of patent law, so no circuit split will occur.  Indeed, as the law is essentially settled at this point, Applicants are unlikely to even file patent applications listing AI as the sole inventor, and thus the fact pattern is unlikely to repeat itself.…

Continue Reading The Future of AI Inventorship Following Denial of Stephen Thaler’s Petition

What is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) model developed by OpenAI. In particular, ChatGPT is a type of “language” model designed to respond with a natural language reply when prompted with a text-based question. The “Chat” in ChatGPT refers to this question-and-answer design, where ChatGPT behaves like a ChatBot. …

Continue Reading ChatGPT and Intellectual Property (IP) related Topics

I am excited to announce the publication of the Intellectual Property Owner (IPO)’s white paper on “Software and Medical Device Guidance: A Global Perspective.”

The paper was authored by the IPO’s Software and Medical Device Subcommittee, which I had the honor and pleasure of leading in 2022. The Subcommittee reports to the IPO’s Software Committee. …

Continue Reading Announcing IPO white paper on a Global Perspective on Software and Medical Device Guidance 

PatentNext Summary: Software and computer-implemented inventions (CII) have experienced explosive growth in recent years. This article looks at laws of jurisdictions in Southeast Asia, comparing the status of enforcement and protection of software and CII in various Southeast Asia countries.…

Continue Reading Patenting Software And Computer-Implemented Inventions In Southeast Asia  

PatentNext Summary: Artificial Intelligence (AI) typically involves certain common aspects such as training data and AI models trained from that training data. Nonetheless, a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision found that it is not always obvious to combine these common aspects to render an AI-based medical device invention unpatentable.…

Continue Reading PTAB finds Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Device Patent not so Obvious

PatentNext Summary: Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are expected to increasingly provide automated decisions impacting, for example, home ownership, job recruitment, and other important life events. In this way, such AI systems have the power to impact a wide variety of people and should be trained in a manner that eliminates bias and promotes fairness. The White House has recently published a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that seeks to acknowledge and address these potentially inherent ethical risks of AI systems. 
…
Continue Reading Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights

PatentNext Summary: Virtual Reality (VR)-related patents are expected to rise with the onset of the Metaverse. Given that VR is fundamentally a software technology, how do courts review VR-related patents? Early cases show that courts will apply similar scrutiny as for other software-related technologies, where VR-related patents will need to satisfy current patent eligibility standards, e.g., by showing an “improvement” to underlying computing technology.  
…
Continue Reading Patenting Virtual Reality (VR) Inventions in the Age of the Metaverse

PatentNext Summary: In August 2022, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal held that U.S. patent law requires a “human” inventor. In 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony held that a human could be the “author” of a photograph. In both cases, a type of “machine” was used to produce an output. Namely, in Thaler a “creativity machine” (a type of Artificial Intelligence (AI)) output and conceived the subject matter of a patent application allegedly without human involvement. In Burrow-Giles a camera output (captured) a photograph, but with human involvement (i.e., the photographer selected and arranged the scene of the photograph). While the Thaler court found that a machine alone cannot be an inventor, it raised the possibility of AI-assisted inventorship that included human involvement (e.g., sole or joint inventorship). Future courts considering the issue of AI inventorship could find the 1884 case of Burrow-Giles instructive, where the photographer’s selection and arrangement for the scene of a photograph in 1884 provides a useful analogy to a modern-day human AI developer’s selection and arrangement of training data, hyperparameters, or other features typically required to train and/or use an AI model.…
Continue Reading The Curious Case of Burrow-Giles Lithographic (an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving “new” camera technology), and how it could help Shape Today’s Thinking on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Inventorship