Patent law discourse is evolving through diverse academic insights, prompting critical analysis of eligibility, gene patenting, and AI roles in invention.
Changes to AI Patent Practice in View of the USPTO's Recent Actions
Applicants cautious of filing terminal disclaimer under Proposed TD Rule may make all claims vulnerable; USPTO's actions drastically impact AI patenting.
USPTO AI Guidance Reiterates DABUS Decision
AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, but inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions.
A single person using an AI system to create an invention must make a significant contribution to be considered a proper inventor.
UK Supreme Court rules on AI and Patent Applications
The UK Supreme Court ruled that an AI system cannot be named as the inventor for a UK patent application.
The court held that an AI system is not a person, let alone a natural person, and therefore cannot meet the requirement of being an inventor under the Patents Act 1977.