Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 ...
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
Charles Holland Duell (April 13, 1850 – January 29, 1920) was the Commissioner of the United States Patent Office from 1898 to 1901, and was later an associate judge of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
After confirmation by the Senate, Dickinson took the oath of office, on November 17, 1999, as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. [ 3 ] In 1999, Congress passed the American Inventors Protection Act , which changed the office and titles to Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and director ...
U.S. Supreme Court cases. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett; 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis; 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island; 62 Cases of Jam v. United States
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. [1]
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]