The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has released a draft version of patent examiner guidelines to address the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the inventive process, reflecting the standing U.S. position that AI cannot be an inventor.
Patent disputes over medical technology exert a significant influence on a company’s fortunes in the marketplace, and a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinforces yet again the importance of patent protection for device manufacturers. In a decision filed May 24, the Federal Circuit decreed that patents for catheters held by Teleflex Innovations were not rendered ineligible by what Dublin-based Medtronic plc had asserted was prior art, thus dealing Medtronic a blow in its efforts to have the five Teleflex patents in question rendered null.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that tests the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be an inventor, a development that may be nothing more than the beginning of the AI-as-inventor story under U.S. law. The Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) April 25 webinar on the subject included some remarks that AI could be used to produce a tsunami of potentially duplicative patent applications, but the event demonstrated that there is almost no at-large support for AI-as-inventor, suggesting that the status quo will stand for the time being.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that tests the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be an inventor, a development that may be nothing more than the beginning of the AI-as-inventor story under U.S. law. The Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) April 25 webinar on the subject included some remarks that AI could be used to produce a tsunami of potentially duplicative patent applications, but the event demonstrated that there is almost no at-large support for AI-as-inventor, suggesting that the status quo will stand for the time being.
Four members of the U.S. Senate have inked a draft bill that would require the FDA and the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to set up a task force designed to improve communication between the two agencies. This would appear to replicate a bill introduced during the 117th Congress, but not ultimately passed, and there is little clarity this early in the legislative cycle as to the prospects for this latest iteration.
Some patent litigation cases don’t require a deep effort to interpret claims, but the litigation between Agilent Technologies Inc., and Dionex Softron GmbH, forced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to determine whether a written description adequately captures the use of a piston in a liquid chromatograph to avoid nullification of the claim.
Chinese investment in U.S. companies is dropping, but Chinese biopharma firms are increasingly eyeing licensing deals on early stage inventions patented by U.S. universities, Lin Sun-Hoffman, founding partner at Liu, Chen & Hoffman LLP, said during a Feb. 24 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office webinar on biopharma patents in China.
Chinese investment in U.S. companies is dropping, but Chinese biopharma firms are increasingly eyeing licensing deals on early stage inventions patented by U.S. universities, Lin Sun-Hoffman, founding partner at Liu, Chen & Hoffman LLP, said during a Feb. 24 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office webinar on biopharma patents in China.
The days may be numbered for drug companies telling the FDA one thing to expedite approval and then telling the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) something else to ensure they get a new patent.
