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 ...
Patents, including appeals arising from an action against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks under 35 U.S.C. § 145; The Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346; Section 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970; Section 5 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973; Section 523 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975; and
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
In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and retroactively numbered older privately-published case reports as part of the new series. As a result, cases appearing in volumes 1–90 of U.S. Reports have dual citation forms; one for the volume number of U.S. Reports, and one for the volume number of the reports named for the relevant reporter of decisions (these are called ...
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants. [1]
Individual opinion counts will not match the Court's totals; the dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that was jointly authored by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito is counted separately for all four justices but counted only once in the Court's totals.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to "tying" arrangements of patented products. [1]
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented.Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter".