Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law.Continue Reading AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

The Biden administration recently determined that it has the right to seize patents covering certain high-priced medicines, in an apparent effort to take a more aggressive approach to lowering drug prices. See Targeting costly meds, Biden admin asserts authority to seize certain drug patents – POLITICO. Pursuant to this plan, the Commerce Department announced it plans to issue a framework that lists the factors the government should consider in determining whether to seize drug patents. Id. The department will seek public feedback and comment on the framework. Id.Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Companies Have Rights if the Federal Government Seized their Patents

Since being appointed to the bench in 2018, Judge Alan Albright in Waco Texas has had one of the busiest patent dockets in the nation, rivaling that of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas. He quickly gained a reputation as providing a quick trial schedule and moving a case forward. Judge Albright has stated that he aims to get to trial within 24 months of a complaint being filed.Continue Reading How Quickly are Judge Albright Patent Cases Going to Trial?

On June 22, 2023, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, which seeks to clarify the jurisprudence surrounding 35 U.S.C. § 101. The current patent eligibility requirements under Section 101 have been evolving by judicially-created exceptions stemming from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Alice and Mayo, and numerous Federal Circuit decisions that have interpreted the Alice and Mayo framework. Those opinions have, on occasion, appeared to provide inconsistent guidance that has led to continued confusion regarding section 101’s application.Continue Reading Senators Propose New Legislation to Clarify Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

This article was first published by ALM / Law.com in The Intellectual Property Strategist.

All of us have been exposed to and perhaps even overwhelmed by news about generative artificial intelligence (AI). Unlike machine learning technology that merely classifies or predicts, generative AI creates. Industry stalwarts and startups alike have launched generative models that can create new text, images, video, 3D models, and even software code — with the promise of more powerful and disruptive innovations to soon follow. A patent strategy informed by the unique considerations raised by generative AI will optimize protections for innovations in the field. Patent strategies should reflect the current legal landscape as well as anticipate potential future legal developments.Continue Reading Generative AI and Patent Considerations – Part Two

First published by ALM / Law.com in The Intellectual Property Strategist

All of us have been exposed to and perhaps even overwhelmed by news about generative artificial intelligence (AI). Unlike machine learning technology that merely classifies or predicts, generative AI creates. Industry stalwarts and startups alike have launched generative models that can create new text, images, video, 3D models, and even software code — with the promise of more powerful and disruptive innovations to soon follow. A patent strategy informed by the unique considerations raised by generative AI will optimize protections for innovations in the field. Patent strategies should reflect the current legal landscape as well as anticipate potential future legal developments.Continue Reading Generative AI and Patent Considerations – Part One

This case addresses the “skilled and diligent searcher” standard used for establishing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) estoppel (or lack thereof). In particular, this case establishes: (1) which party bears the burden of proof regarding whether a “skilled and diligent searcher” could have reasonably been expected to discover prior art such that failure to include it in an IPR petition estops the petitioner from raising it in other civil actions under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2); and (2) the “skilled and diligent searcher” inquiry itself with respect to what a skilled and diligent searcher reasonably would have been expected to discover.Continue Reading Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023)

In a per curium order issued under seal May 3, 2023 but recently made public, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board awarded sanctions against Patent Owner, Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, canceling all challenged claims of its five asserted patents for its “egregious abuse of the PTAB process.” Particularly, the Board determined that Patent Owner, through its counsel, failed to meet its duty of candor and fair dealing before the Board by “selectively and improperly” withholding information material to the patentability of the claims challenged in the IPR proceeding.Continue Reading “Egregious Abuse” of the PTAB Process Leads to Adverse Decision Sanctions in IPR Proceeding