News & Analysis as of

Appeals › Innovative Technology

Foley & Lardner LLP

How to Patent AI-Assisted Inventions: USPTO Guidance Highlights Importance of Understanding the ‘Significant Contributions’...

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has opened up exciting possibilities for innovation, but also uncertainty around who gets credit for inventions developed with the assistance of an AI system. At its core, there...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patents Manipulating Medical Imaging Data as Abstract

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

The Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to storing and providing medical images over the web as “virtual views” were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they involved nothing more than “converting data and...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2023 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

Not surprisingly, 2023 was another notable year for design rights around the globe. However, nowhere more than the U.S. did we see court decisions that will, in the case of one, and could in the case of another, have...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: Federal Circuit Rules AI Can't Invent

AEON Law on

The Federal Circuit has ruled that only human beings – and not an artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered an “inventor” under US patent law. (We wrote about this issue way back in 2017, by the way…)... ...more

Proskauer - Life Sciences

Update on Artificial Intelligence as a Patent Inventor

Proskauer - Life Sciences on

Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Required to Provide Interpretation of Regulation Concerning Determination of Which Patents Qualify for CBM Review

Knobbe Martens on

SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

In Bayer v. Watson, the panel throws out Bayer’s patent to its Staxyn erectile dysfunction drug as being obvious, noting that the district court focused too heavily on the commercial availability of the prior art. The panel...more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide