34,187 results on '"PATENT law"'
Search Results
2. Intellectual property law protection for energy-efficient innovation in Saudi Arabia
- Author
-
Sarabdeen, Jawahitha and Mohamed Ishak, Mohamed Mazahir
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Cons of Property Rights.
- Subjects
- *
INTELLECTUAL property , *ACCESS to information , *DISRUPTIVE innovations , *PATENT law , *PIRACY (Copyright) - Abstract
The article discusses various perspectives on intellectual property rights and their impact on innovation and access to information. Topics discussed include the limitations and consequences of recent U.S. patent system changes, the potential impact of site-blocking legislation on piracy, and the strategic threat posed by Chinese intellectual property practices.
- Published
- 2024
4. The Pros and US Intellectual.
- Subjects
- *
INTELLECTUAL property , *COPYRIGHT , *TRADEMARKS , *PATENT law , *MUSIC & technology - Abstract
The article examines current legislative efforts to protect intellectual property and enhance public access to codes and standards. Topics discussed include the Pro Codes Act's balance between copyright protection and public access, the Music Modernization Act's impact on music licensing and royalties, and the challenges and updates in trademark and patent law.
- Published
- 2024
5. Suppliers' entry, upgrading, and innovation in mining GVCs: lessons from Argentina, Brazil, and Peru.
- Author
-
Pietrobelli, Carlo, Olvera, Beatriz Calzada, Iizuka, Michiko, and Mazzi, Caio Torres
- Subjects
INDUSTRIAL organization (Economic theory) ,COPPER ores ,VALUE chains ,COPPER ,INTERNATIONAL trade ,SUPPLIERS ,PATENT law - Abstract
This paper studies whether the mining sector can represent a true engine of growth for selected Latin American countries through the suppliers' entry and upgrading within mining value chains. We start by using international trade data to study where mining value is added and how rents are distributed across countries. Despite their importance in the production and exports of copper ores and concentrate, the participation of the selected Latin American countries in copper value chains is still confined to the upstream segment. Moreover, their share of innovation relevant for the sector remains very limited, although new data on patenting and publications show that the sector is becoming increasingly innovative worldwide. Then, we use new microeconomic evidence from case-studies in Latin America to explore the specific opportunities and obstacles faced by mining suppliers in entering the value chain and upgrading within it, and how the regulatory and innovation systems have influenced this process. We show that barriers related to the contractual practices, lead firms' attitudes, and the hierarchical industrial organization of the sector, coupled with the countries' weaknesses in local innovation and regulatory systems, have been contributing to hamper suppliers' entry into mining value chains and upgrading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship
- Author
-
Marsoof, Althaf, Kacprzyk, Janusz, Series Editor, Gomide, Fernando, Advisory Editor, Kaynak, Okyay, Advisory Editor, Liu, Derong, Advisory Editor, Pedrycz, Witold, Advisory Editor, Polycarpou, Marios M., Advisory Editor, Rudas, Imre J., Advisory Editor, Wang, Jun, Advisory Editor, Chakraborty, Mohuya, editor, Chakrabarty, Shambhu Prasad, editor, Penteado, Ana, editor, and Balas, Valentina Emilia, editor
- Published
- 2025
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. ESTOP ME NOW: THE NEED FOR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IN REBUTTING PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL VIA TANGENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
- Author
-
WHEELER, WILLIAM F.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *LEGAL evidence , *APPELLATE courts , *PRESUMPTIONS (Law) , *JURISPRUDENCE - Abstract
In 2002, in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed patent law when it rejected the Federal Circuit's absolute bar approach to prosecution history estoppel. The decision expanded the doctrine of equivalents by creating three exceptions to prosecution history estoppel. Of the three exceptions, however, the Court provided de minimis guidance on the tangential amendment exception, leaving the Federal Circuit to sort out when a narrowing claim amendment is only tangentially related to a claimed equivalent. This ambiguity has resulted in pronounced inconsistency among Federal Circuit panels in deciphering the scope of this exception. Differing judicial approaches in interpreting gaps within the prosecution history record have further compounded this inconsistency. Moreover, the nuanced challenges that patents in complex and evolving fields pose has led to a more lenient application of the exception in these fields compared to patents in other domains. Consequently, the jurisprudence stands in a state of disarray, lacking the essential clarity needed for equitable implementation. This Note argues that to rectify this ambiguity and align with the Festo decision, patentees should be allowed to present extrinsic evidence. Relying solely on intrinsic evidence, which often offers limited and unreliable information, has overly emphasized the notice function of the prosecution record. The Warner-Jenkins presumptions, combined with extrinsic evidence to challenge estoppel through tangentiality, presents a balanced approach, promoting fairness and equity among patentees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2025
8. Defeating Patent Trolls at the Pleading Stage: A New Approach to Attacking Means-Plus-Function Patents.
- Author
-
Spagnuolo, Nicholas R.
- Subjects
- *
NONPRACTICING entities (Patent law) , *PATENTABILITY , *PATENT law , *MOTIONS to dismiss , *DISTRICT courts - Abstract
Courts have recently been struggling to answer an open question related to whether patent validity can be challenged at the pleading stage. In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court created a "litigation gatekeeper" for patent eligibility claims. Yet, lower courts come to conflicting conclusions whenfaced with early-stage motions to dismiss based on validity. No article has focused on how the analytical framework used by district courts in a motion to dismiss for ineligibility under Alice can be extended to other areas of patent law. I conclude that patent validity may be determined as an issue of law for a judge. As an issue of law, validity can be challenged at the pleadingstage for a portion of patents that cannot be revived through claim construction. The Article proposes an analytical framework that mirrors the steps of patent ineligibility for district courts to use when faced with a motion to dismiss for invalidity with means-plus-functions claims. Means-plus-function claims present broad language that makes them more susceptible to abuse by non-practicing entities who intend on asserting overbroad patents to force settlements (known as "patent trolls"1 District courts have been wary to entertain motion to dismiss on invalidity at the pleading stage, creating a "settled practice" of delaying a ruling. But, by delaying a ruling, district courts are providing economic ammunition to patent trolls, which creates a hardship for many alleged infringers. In short, by using the provided framework, alleged infringers are protected by resolving claims early in litigation, which lowers the transactional cost of challenging overbroad patents and promotes innovation and growth within the patent system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2025
9. Undressing AI: Transparency Through Patents.
- Author
-
Perritt Jr., Henry H.
- Subjects
- *
GENERATIVE artificial intelligence , *INTELLECTUAL property , *PATENTABILITY , *PATENT law , *PATENT applications - Abstract
Pressures for more flexible acceptance of patent applications involving computer inventions and pressures to require greater transparency of generative artificial intelligence ("Al") products may represent a perfect storm for patent eligibility clarification and for AI transparency. The revolution in artificialintelligence technology has led to an upsurge in applications for patents covering AI inventions. Whether these inventions are eligible for patent protection intensifies a vigorous debate that has surrounded two Supreme Court decisions in the last ten years that erect barriers to statutory eligibility for patents. These two cases, known collectively as "Alice/Mayo," superimpose judicial exceptions disqualifying subject matter that literally qualifies under the language of the patent statutes. The controversy, even before Ars arrival on the scene, pits innovators seeking broader intellectual property protection over computer software and biotechnology against those who claim that aggressive intellectual property rights and enforcement stifles rather than stimulates innovation. The unusual characteristics of generative AI technology mean that applications for genuine inventions in the area can break down some barriers that have artificially circumscribed patent eligibility. Properly described, these characteristics, combined with commentator suggestions about how Alice/Mayo should be understood and applied, can permit patent law to adapt appropriately, even without legislative reform. One of the loudest calls for regulating AI demands transparency. Transparency is a requirement for obtaining a patent. Developers have been grudging in their response because of the need to protect trade secrets. Greater reliance on patents to protect AI innovations will meet the proprietary needs of AI developers to protect against free riding on their innovations, while also responding to regulatory and legislative movements to make AI transparent. Legislation now pending in Congress to amend the patent act and get rid of the judicial exceptions probably is not going to get enacted, but the clamor to regulate Al may intrude into the intellectual property arena, giving new political impetus to changing perspectives on patents for twenty-first century technology. A perfect storm may allow inventors and their patent lawyers to retire from the battlefield and go back into the lab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2025
10. 'AI is not an Inventor': Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Patentability of AI Inventions.
- Author
-
Matulionyte, Rita
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTABILITY , *ARTIFICIAL intelligence , *LEGAL judgments , *APPELLATE courts - Abstract
The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in inventive processes raises numerous patent law issues, including whether AI can be an inventor under law and who owns the AI‐generated inventions. The UK Supreme Court decision in Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has provided an ultimate answer to this question: AI cannot be an inventor for the purposes of patent law. This note argues, first, that while such a human‐centric approach to inventorship might discourage the use and development of AI technologies with autonomous invention capabilities, it will help retain an active human involvement in technologically supported inventive processes and continuously foster human ingenuity. Second, despite the Court focusing on what patent law is and not on what the law should be, the decision will be influential in the ongoing discussions on the future of patent law and will make it more difficult to expand patent law to incorporate non‐human inventors. Third, the decision has opened, or revealed, the gaps in patent law that the emergence of AI technologies have created and for which new legal solutions will be needed, especially with relation to the ownership of AI‐assisted inventions and the validation of inventorship claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2025
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.