Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. [ citation needed ] In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention ...
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (PL 93-596 of January 2, 1975) [4] C. Marshall Dann: 1974: 1977 Donald W. Banner: 1978: 1979 Sidney A. Diamond: 1979: 1981 Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (Public Law 97-366 of October 25, 1982) [4] Gerald J. Mossinghoff: 1981: 1985 Donald J. Quigg: 1985: 1990 ...
State trade secret law not preempted by patent law. Dann v. Johnston: 425 U.S. 219: 1976: Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility). Sakraida v. Ag Pro: 425 U.S. 273: 1976
Robert Jehan, of law firm Williams Powell, who represented Dr Thaler at the Supreme Court, said the judgment shows “how poorly current UK patent law supports the aim of making the UK a global ...
Artificial Inventor Project chief Ryan Abbott, who represented Thaler in the U.K. case, told me he found the ruling “unfortunate,” but he took heart from the fact that the Supreme Court said ...
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that controlling the execution of a physical process, by running a computer program did not preclude patentability of the invention as a whole.
The Commissioner of Patents may refer to: Commissioner of Patents (Australia) Commissioner of Patents (Canada) Commissioner for Patents (US) who oversees the United States Patent and Trademark Office and reports to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. List of people who have headed the United States Patent Office
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents): patent of higher lifeforms (CA, 2002) Honeywell v. Sperry Rand (US, 1973) Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (US, 1850) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH (European Court of Justice, C-170/13, 2015), judgement on standard-essential patents