Search

The identification, establishment, and exploration of potential pharmacological drug targets are major steps of the drug development pipeline. Target validation requires diverse chemical tools that come with a spectrum of functionality, e.g., inhibitors, activators, and other modulators. Particularly tools with rare modes-of-action allow for a proper kinetic and functional characterization of the targets-of-interest (e.g., channels, enzymes, receptors, or transporters). Despite, functional innovation is a prime criterion for patentability and commercial exploitation, which may lead to therapeutic benefit. Unfortunately, data on new, and thus, undruggable or barely druggable targets are scarce and mostly available for mainstream modes-of-action only (e.g., inhibition). Here we present a novel cheminformatic workflow—computer-aided pattern scoring (C@PS)—which was specifically designed to project its prediction capabilities into an uncharted domain of applicability. Scientific contribution: The presented workflow tackles, for the first time, the challenge of data scarcity particularly focusing rare modes-of-action. In addition, the workflow and associated dataset provide new standards in the definition and application of criteria to rationalize drug candidate selection addressing important gaps in cheminformatics as well as computational and medicinal chemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing interest in postbiotics, a term gaining recognition alongside probiotics and prebiotics, aligns with a growing number of clinical trials demonstrating positive outcomes for specific conditions. Postbiotics present several advantages, including safety, extended shelf life, ease of administration, absence of risk, and patentability, making them more appealing than probiotics alone. This review covers various aspects, starting with an introduction, terminology, classification of postbiotics, and brief mechanisms of action. It emphasizes microbial metabolomics as the initial step in discovering novel postbiotics. Commonly employed techniques such as NMR, GC-MS, and LC-MS are briefly outlined, along with their application principles and limitations in microbial metabolomics. The review also examines existing research where these techniques were used to identify, isolate, and characterize postbiotics derived from different microbial sources. The discovery section concludes by highlighting challenges and future directions to enhance postbiotic discovery. In the second half of the review, we delve deeper into numerous published postbiotic clinical trials to date. We provide brief overviews of system-specific trial applications, their objectives, the postbiotics tested, and their outcomes. The review concludes by highlighting ongoing applications of postbiotics in extended clinical trials, offering a comprehensive overview of the current landscape in this evolving field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the impact of the America Invents Act (AIA) on patent laws, specifically focusing on the grace period exceptions and prior user rights defense. It discusses the uncertainty surrounding the definitions of certain terms within the act, particularly in relation to the grace period exceptions. The article recommends redefining key terms and implementing additional reforms to clarify the AIA's policy goals. It also highlights the potential consequences of the uncertainty in patent law, such as inventors inadvertently invalidating their patent rights and discouraging investment in inventions. The article emphasizes the need for certainty and proactive reforms in the patent system. [Extracted from the article]

This document provides a summary of the subject matter eligibility standard in United States patent law and the ongoing debate surrounding it. It discusses the historical evolution of the standard and highlights four modern cases that have shaped it. The article also examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, which aims to amend the standard, and argues against its adoption, citing concerns about broad patents and potential hindrance to innovation. The text further explores the categories of patent-ineligible subject matter and emphasizes the importance of practical application in the patent process. It concludes by discussing the criticism and support for the current standard and the proposed changes. [Extracted from the article]

Despite the common belief that the granting of a patent is a neutral act, patent protection is intended to encourage technological innovations that are acceptable from an ethical point of view: in fact, both international and supranational legislation exclude from patentability inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public, a notion that certainly encompasses also the prevention of serious damage to the environment. However, the provisions excluding the patentability of inventions whose commercial exploitation is contrary to ordre public (and in particular to environmental ordre public) have rarely been applied in Europe. After outlining the reasons why ordre public exceptions have had very limited application in Europe so far, the paper offers a new perspective through which such exceptions should be interpreted and suggests how patent offices can play a new and more decisive role in promoting environmentally sustainable innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a series of decisions over the last decade, the Supreme Court of the United States altered the classes of inventions that are eligible for patent protection—a body of law called subject matter eligibility. One of the more contentious of these decisions, Alice Corp. versus CLS Bank International (Alice), questioned the patentability of a broad class of inventions involving abstract ideas, particularly in digital technologies. Exploiting a quasinatural experiment, we find that the Alice decision reduced favorable patent eligibility decisions by 31% and significantly and persistently increased legal uncertainty in patent examination by 26% for a broad set of technologies. Our analysis quantifies how legal decisions can limit patent protection and highlights the need for further research on how greater legal uncertainty affects upstream investments supporting invention and downstream innovations fueling growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

In this Article, we define and interrogate a new typology for patentability rules. In our typology, some rules are predominantly relative inquiries--meaning that they entail the use of discrete comparators--whereas others are predominantly absolute in that they lack this core comparative methodology. Selected patentability rules blend the characteristics of both relative and absolute inquiries in complex ways. We leverage our relative/absolute typology in this Article to make two sets of contributions to the literature. First, we use our typology to craft a new descriptive account of the patentability doctrines. We show that the requirements of novelty and nonobviousness are almost exclusively relative measures of patentability, while the requirements of eligible subject matter and utility are almost exclusively absolute measures of patentability. Other requirements--namely the enablement and written description requirements, both inquiries into the adequacy of the patent disclosure--are blended, with the enablement requirement tipping towards the relative and the written description requirement largely absolute. In light of these observations, we argue that the typology is an attractive pedagogical tool for explaining the patentability rules in a new way in judicial, administrative, academic, and other settings where such explanations are critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case in France regarding the patentability of a method for displaying the mission of an aircraft over time. The court ruled that certain features of the method constituted technical means and therefore the invention was not excluded from patentability. However, the court criticized the lower court for not providing a legal basis for its decision. The article also discusses a patent application for a method of displaying the stages of an aircraft mission, which was rejected by the Director General of the INPI. The court determined that certain claims of the patent application did have technical characteristics and were not excluded from patentability, but noted that the description of the patent application lacked technical details. The article also mentions a recent decision by the French Supreme Court regarding the patentability of a method for displaying waypoints of a flight plan on a cockpit screen. The Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeal's ruling, stating that a "technical contribution" had not been established. The article highlights the changing cultural perspective in France regarding the eligibility of computer-implemented inventions and raises questions about the future approach to patentability and inventive step in the country. [Extracted from the article]

This article published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property pays tribute to the late Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, a renowned patent law scholar. The authors discuss the impact of Professor Karshtedt's scholarship on patent law, particularly in areas such as patent enablement, patent infringement, and nonobviousness. They also reflect on their personal friendship with Professor Karshtedt and his qualities as a dedicated teacher and intellectual. The article explores various legal sources and discussions on patent law, including the written description requirement, the purpose of patents, the unpredictability of research in fields like chemistry and biotechnology, building blocks in patent law, the relationship between patent law and tort law, divided infringement, and the doctrine of nonobviousness. The authors propose alternative approaches to determining liability in multi-party infringement situations and suggest a new framework for classifying evidence in patent law. Overall, the article praises Professor Karshtedt's contributions to patent law scholarship and highlights his personal qualities. [Extracted from the article]

Brain Organoids in their current state of development are patentable. Future brain organoids may face some challenges in this regard, which I address in this contribution. Brain organoids unproblematically fulfil the general prerequisites of patentability set forth in Art. 3 (1) EU-Directive 98/44/EC (invention, novelty, inventive step and susceptibility of industrial application). Patentability is excluded if an invention makes use of human embryos or constitutes a stage of the human body in the individual phases of its formation and development. Both do not apply to brain organoids, unless ES-cells are used. Art. 6 (1) EU-Directive 98/44/EC excludes patentability for inventions “the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality”. While there is no conceivable scenario, in which the commercial application of current brain organoids violates the ordre public, the same is not necessarily true for future brain organoids. Keeping in mind that a development of consciousness-like abilities in future brain organoids cannot be excluded and that an ability for both physical and psychological suffering has been theorized, both of which are aspects of the ordre public, certain applications of future brain organoids may constitute a violation of the ordre public and therefore lead to an exclusion of patentability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patents as intangible assets are subjects of burgeoning empirical research. However, there is limited knowledge of how patent quality and patent value can be conceptualized, distinguished, and related. Distinguishing these concepts and relating them in a theoretical framework would enable the assessment and improvement of patent quality, which has implications for all the stakeholders in patents. We ground this study in the emergent ex‐ante theory of patent value and conduct a systematic review of 340 papers that investigate patent quality or value. Based on a comparative analysis of the patentability standards adopted by the patent offices in the United States, Europe, and Japan, we delineate four dimensions of patent quality—subject matter, utility, non‐obviousness or inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure. Our study contributes to theory by providing an elaborated conceptual model that relates the different dimensions of patent quality and patent value and mapping the different types of indicators of patent quality and value onto the corresponding patent quality or value dimensions. Our study suggests that patent policymakers can incentivize innovators to file patent applications of high quality, which would reduce the incidence of poor‐quality patents in the system and improve the efficiency and reputation of the patent office. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of a quartet of Supreme Court decisions which disrupted decades of settled law, the doctrine of patentable subject matter is in turmoil. Scholars, commentators, and jurists continue to disagree sharply over which kinds of invention should be patentable. In this debate, no technology has been more controversial than software. Advocates of software patents contend that denying protection would stymie innovation in a vital industry; skeptics argue that patents are a poor fit for software, and that the social costs of patents outweigh any plausible benefits. At the core of this disagreement is a basic problem: the debate is predicated on various claims about how and whether patents incentivize innovation, but like much of patent law, these claims rest on meager empirical foundations. This Article bolsters these foundations by testing one important claim: that patents serve to attract investment in new inventions. Using a novel quasi-experimental approach and an original dataset, I investigate whether the grant of a patent makes a business-methods software startup more likely to attract early-stage venture capital investment. In contrast to prior scholarship, I find no evidence that patents play a role in channeling investment to these startups, nor that they lead to more successful downstream outcomes such as acquisitions and initial public offerings. These findings have important implications for both patent policy and scholarship. First, this Article provides new evidence on the perennial controversy over whether business-methods software should be patenteligible. As Congress continues to contemplate new legislation to clarify the law of patentable subject matter, the results call into question a leading justification for granting patents in this area. Second, in light of previous scholarship which finds a relationship between patents and investment in other areas of technology, I demonstrate the importance of developing industry-specific evidence on the role that patents play in stimulating innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patents incentivize innovation, but the face of innovation has changed over the past several decades. Patent law is adapting to the radical growth of the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries, which produce drugs and biologics respectively. Research and development ("R&D") in these fields is largely incremental--new products are often derived from existing products. However, patents do not protect "obvious" improvements, those that anyone skilled in the relevant scientific field could have discovered through predictable, routine work. The line between incremental R&D and routine, obvious improvements is difficult to draw. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have become critical of incremental R&D, in turn discouraging what they find to be "routine optimization." This Note describes the modern obviousness standard as it applies to the improvement of drugs and biologics and examines arguments for and against protecting incremental innovation. In light of these considerations, this Note argues that modern expectations for innovation should be updated and advocates for a stricter, narrower definition of obviousness that reflects the value of incremental R&D to the continued growth of the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though the Patent Act broadly defines the types of inventions eligible for patenting—processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter— judicially created exceptions exclude certain fundamental categories. No inventor may patent a natural law, mathematical formula, or an abstract idea. But what separates an abstract idea from a concrete implementation that integrates the abstract idea into a patentable invention? In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Supreme Court required inventors to add significantly more to the underlying principle, formula, or abstract idea to receive a patent. And in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Court held that adding generic computer technology does not suffice. Subject matter eligibility of patents in the wake of Mayo and Alice has become a major obstacle to many inventions, and patentability has been difficult to predict. Asking whether a patent claim includes an inventive concept that adds significantly more to an ineligible idea is straightforward; answering consistently has proven elusive for both the courts and the patent office. This Comment proposes borrowing a principle from copyright law—the merger doctrine—to bear on patent eligibility. Under the merger doctrine, if there are only very few ways of expressing an uncopyrightable idea, then each of those expressions is uncopyrightable because they are merged with the idea. The merger doctrine aim of separating the protectable from the unprotectable parallels the eligibility question in patents, and it offers more intuitive application and framing than what is currently used in the patent sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Great Britain Supreme Court's decision on the patentability of inventions created by AI-powered machines. Topics include the definition of an inventor under the U.K. Patents Act 1977, the requirement for a patent applicant to be a natural person or a legal entity, and the conclusion that AI machines cannot be recognized as inventors under current patent law.

The subject matter eligibility doctrine initially existed as a means of limiting the scope of an inventor's patent claim. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of the doctrine to invalidate patents that effectively recite a claim for processes or products that exist in nature. These recent decisions have led to confusion over what inventions qualify as patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit and commentators have implored the legislature to weigh in on the issue and establish clearer guidance for what constitutes patentable subject matter. Two proposed bills introduced in the House and Senate seek to clarify the doctrine by allowing for patents to be granted more broadly to inventions that incorporate biological materials and other routine scientific practices. This Note argues that neither proposed law adequately addresses the underlying policy concerns left unaddressed by the Supreme Court in their recent decisions regarding the patentability of biological materials and processes. Rather than adopt either proposed law, Congress should draft an exclusionary rule for patent eligibility that precludes inventors from claiming a genetic sequence that exists in nature within their patent claim. Such a rule would impose a necessary limit to the scope of patent claims that reinforces the original goals of the subject matter eligibility doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has long been assumed that animals cannot be patented by man unless they have been genetically engineered to make them different than what is found in natu·re. This rule excludes animals that are selectively bred through traditional means from patent eligibility. This assumption is now being chat.lenged, as what many thought was an obscure theory is being tested in the patent office by cattle breeding companies. This Note argues that selectivelq bred animals are patent-€ligible, but Congress should amend the statute to protect the livestock industg and preuentfurther consolidation that livestock patents would cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares the patent eligibility of biological subject matters in China and the United States. It discusses the different approaches taken by the two countries in areas such as methods for diagnosing and treating diseases, genetically modified animals and plants, genetic resources, and human stem cells. The article acknowledges the cultural and traditional influences on their respective patent systems and explores potential areas for harmonization to promote global intellectual property protection and innovation in biotechnology. It also discusses the impact of patent laws on the dissemination of knowledge and suggests the need for balancing cultural values and promoting innovation. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Propiedad Inmaterial is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Centro de Estudios de la Propriedad Intelectual and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patent offices worldwide deny patentability to innovations which stand against the ordre public : does enhancement represent a value-laden societal threat? Patent offices also reject applications for therapeutical methods: when is enhancement also a therapeutical method? One specific class of enhancers, i.e. pharmaceutical neuroenhancers, is particularly complex in this respect: certain molecules can potentially function both as treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders and as recreational enhancers for non-patients' brain. Hence, the present work advances the debate on enhancement patentability in two directions: ratione loci , by scrutinising China's stances on enhancement's safety and morality, compared to the most frequently explored Western jurisdictions, namely the EU and the US; and ratione materiae , by illuminating the porous bioethical boundaries between treatment and enhancement in the domain of neuropsychiatry. It challenges patent offices' de facto regulatory role in defining and policing citizens' access to neuroenhancing substances through misplaced or pseudo-scientific intellectual-property narratives of innovativeness and morale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the importance of personalized medicine in the society and the use of patents, trade secrets and open-source methods to protect intellectual property (IP) advances in that field. Topics include the need to improve the current patent laws in the U.S. and the different options for making these laws more predictable, an overview of personalized medicine and the important elements in the field, and the IP strategies available for inventions in personalized medicine.

This symposium Article discusses issues raised for patent processes and policy created by inventions generated by artificial intelligence ("AI"). The Article begins by examining the normative desirability of allowing patents on AI-generated inventions. While it is unclear whether patent protection is needed to incentivize the creation of AI-generated inventions, a stronger case can be made that AI-generated inventions should be patent eligible to encourage the commercialization and technology transfer of AI-generated inventions. Next, the Article examines how the emergence of AI inventions will alter patentability standards, and whether a differentiated patent system that treats AI-generated inventions differently from human-generated inventions is normatively desirable. This Article concludes by considering the larger implications of allowing patents on AI-generated inventions, including changes to the patent examination process, a possible increase in the concentration of patent ownership and patent thickets, and potentially unlimited inventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines patent eligibility based on records from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics discussed include the patent eligibility doctrine, case law history prior to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International, the USPTO patent examination guidance, a hypothesis on the influence of patent application filing and examination behavior on changes in acceptance of the Alappat special-purpose computer doctrine, and data sources and categorization of patent applications.

The article focuses on analyzing the patent-eligible subject matter doctrine post the Federal Circuit's ruling in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and problematic nature of the Mayo/Alice framework in determining patent eligibility. Topics include the framework's overlap with other patentability tests and its failure to consider the inherent abstraction in all inventions, with the proposed solution being a revised notion of patent eligibility.

An introduction is presented in which editor discusses various articles within the issue on topics including court case related to patent-eligible subject matter doctrine; interplay between copyright, state sovereign immunity, and Takings Clause and rights to privacy in geofence search warrant.

The field of natural products chemistry is ripe with innovation that underpins a broad range of industries. Patents are critical to incentivising the investment needed to drive this innovation and there is surprisingly broad scope to protect natural product-related inventions using patents. However, the patent process can be difficult to navigate and recent developments in case law, particularly in the United States (USA), have introduced further complexities into the patent system that undermine innovation in the natural products space. While steps are being taken to address these issues, we outline the requirements for patent eligibility in Australia, the US and Europe, and discuss the different aspects of natural products chemistry that may be considered patentable, to assist readers in navigating the current complexities of seeking patent protection. While there is surprisingly broad scope to protect natural product related inventions using patents, the patent process can be complex, particularly in view of recent legal developments in the United States. This article assists readers to navigate the complexities of seeking patent protection in the field of natural product chemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the impact of regional technological relatedness on the emergence of recombinant novelty (i.e., new combinations of subclasses occurring for the first time) in French regions using patent data over the period 1990–2010. We find that relatedness favours incremental innovations that reuse already applied combinations, whereas increasing levels of relatedness reduce the likelihood of novelty. However, the impact is less negative when combined technologies are new, unrelated or not locally specialized because it facilitates learning and technological recombination. We also find that universities and large incumbents are less dependent on relatedness than small and novel players to create novelty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Philosophy & History of Biology / Filosofia e História da Biologia is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Filosofia e Historia da Biologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Angle Health Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually becoming not only an emerging technology in the development policies and strategies for the national economy but also a significant challenge posed to various issues of law, including the patent law. Alongside the Industrial Revolution 4.0, the rapid technological and scientific advancement has enabled AI to approach the level of natural intelligence of humans or more. Noswadays, the development of technology has been demonstrated that AI is likely to autonomously generate inventions. In light of the fact that the identification of the inventor impacts the patentability of AI-generated inventions, this poses a new challenge regarding the inventorship of AI, with the most confusing question being whether AI should be recognized as an inventor. This article provides an overview of AI and patentability challenges to clarify the fundamental understanding of AI and material concerns regarding AI-generated inventions. Simultaneously, the authors examine the laws and practices in selected countries to provide the viewpoints of competent authorities on patent protection for AI-generated inventions and the inventorship of AI. Finally, the authors conclude with a discussion of the recognition of AI inventorship, patent protection for AI-generated inventions, an evaluation of the recognizability of Vietnamese patent law, and a call for further research on relevant matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ubiquitous computerization and digitalization are contributing to the unprecedented growth of the software market. Computer programs are protected as subject of copyright law in international law and domestic legal systems. However, copyright law does not protect the interests of the copyright holder from borrowing ideas and algorithms which often have agreat commercial value. This circumstance has prompted the legal science and law enforcement practice of the most developed states to justify the possibility of protecting computer programs and their algorithms. The leading states chosen for in this paper are the G20 states. The relevance of this choice is due to the following: 1) The G20 states account for 86% of global GDP; 2) All world leaders in computer software development are G20 members; 3) All BRICS states are G20 members; 4) The law-and-orders of the G20 states are relevant to all existing traditions of the legal protection of intellectual property in the world. The legal systems of the G20 states follow one of three approaches according to the criterion of patentability of computer programs and their algorithms. We call the first approach “neutral.” It includes States which legislation does not explicitly prohibit the patenting of computer programs, but computer programs themselves are not mentioned among the subject matters of inventions. The second (“positive”) approach includes those states which legislation explicitly classifies computer programs as patentable inventions. On the contrary, the third (“negating”) approach includes states where it is legally established that computer programs as such are unpatentable. The results of the research demonstrate that there is no direct correlation between the way of solving the issue of patentability of computer program algorithms in different legal systems and the state’s place in the global IT market. For example, the United States and China take aneutral approach, Japan takes apositive approach, the EU Member States and India take anegating approach. We believe that the most flexible approach is aneutral approach from the point of view of patent law policy. The most liberal and consistent approach is the positive approach presented by the Japanese legal system. Finally, the negating approach is the most controversial and at the same time widespread among the G20 and BRICS states.

In Thaler v. Vidal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) machine cannot be an inventor under patent law. This decision leaves open the question of whether a natural person can be the legal inventor of AI-generated inventions. This is a pressing question because it decides whether AI-generated inventions are patentable, as no patent rights can exist without an inventor. Scholars have proposed two doctrines that might resolve this question: (1) the doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice and (2) the doctrine of first to recognize and appreciate. This Note analyzes the two doctrines and argues that neither doctrine readily applies to AI-generated inventions, thereby leaving an "inventorship gap.". Because the current patent system is ill-equipped to deal with the inventorship of AI-generated inventions, Congress should adopt and repurpose copyright law's work-for-hire doctrine and recognize the natural person using the invention-generating AI as the legal inventor of those inventions. Doing so bridges the inventorship gap, offers certainty as to the patentability of AI-generated inventions, and facilitates the goals of the patent system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) with unfavorable physicochemical properties and stability present a significant challenge during their processing into final dosage forms. Cocrystallization of such APIs with suitable coformers is an efficient approach to mitigate the solubility and stability concerns. A considerable number of cocrystal-based products are currently being marketed and show an upward trend. However, to improve the API properties by cocrystallization, coformer selection plays a paramount role. Selection of suitable coformers not only improves the drug's physicochemical properties but also improves the therapeutic effectiveness and reduces side effects. Numerous coformers have been used till date to prepare pharmaceutically acceptable cocrystals. The carboxylic acid-based coformers, such as fumaric acid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, and citric acid, are the most commonly used coformers in the currently marketed cocrystal-based products. Carboxylic acid-based coformers are capable of forming the hydrogen bond and contain smaller carbon chain with the APIs. This review summarizes the role of coformers in improving the physicochemical and pharmaceutical properties of APIs, and deeply explains the utility of afore-mentioned coformers in API cocrystal formation. The review concludes with a brief discussion on the patentability and regulatory issues related to pharmaceutical cocrystals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Supreme Court established a two-step framework to determine whether a supposed invention that involves a "natural law" can be a patent-eligible subject matter. Two years later, the Supreme Court extended this framework in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International to "abstract ideas," and cemented the framework as the test to determine patent-eligible subject matter. Recent cases demonstrate that this framework has collapsed from a two-step inquiry into a one-step inquiry, leading to bizarre results and legal uncertainty. This Note examines why the Mayo framework should never have been extended to abstract ideas in Alice, and proposes a solution to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patent eligibility the Supreme Court continues to rely on its 1947 opinion in Funk Brothers Seed v. Kalo Inoculant. It is one of the most cited cases for patent eligibility and the Supreme Court relies heavily upon it. It forms one of the foundations of the current eligibility test in Mayo v. Prometheus. This article argues that this reliance is in error. Funk is just not appropriate for modern patent eligibility. Interestingly this view is not new. Ever since its appearance in Flook, the Supreme Court's use of Funk has been dogged by criticism that faults the Court for improperly using an obviousness case for subject matter eligibility purposes. The Court has noted these criticisms but has flatly dismissed them. The critiques persist but they have remained a minority view in the patent academy. This article argues that the critics have had it right all along but that they have not gone far enough. Funk is indeed an obviousness case but that alone has not been sufficient. The missing link is an argument about statutory interpretation. What has not been fully appreciated is that the 1952 Patent Act changed the meaning of the patent eligibility statute. Curiously, this is true even though the literal text of the provision did not change. But once that change is understood, it becomes clear that not only is Funk an obviousness case but more importantly it cannot be a patentable subject matter case. When properly understood, the answer is clear. The Court should no longer cite Funk for patent eligibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines, from a comparative law perspective, how jurisdictions across East, Southeast and South Asia deal with the issue of the patentability of second/subsequent medical uses. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of subsequent medical uses of known medical compositions, as a number of medicines that are being used to treat Covid-19 were originally developed for other illnesses. The decision whether second/subsequent medical uses of pharmaceuticals are patentable in any given jurisdiction is, however, a policy decision to the extent that it is one of the main exclusions available to countries as a 'flexibility' under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). The results of this study show that there is a wide variation in Asia regarding the patentability of second/subsequent uses, and examines the possible reasons for this variation. The paper concludes with recommendations for countries in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovation involving artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding and diffusing into other areas of technology. Additionally, inventors have been using AI to assist in new technology for quite a while and have likely received patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or "Office") for their inventions without disclosing the AI involved in the patentable subject matter. As AI has become increasingly present in the implementation of new technology, the question of whether an AI can be an inventor has arisen. In Thaler v. Iancu and on appeal, the courts have affirmatively said no. However, this decision implicates the reliability, clarity, and incentivization of patents involving this subject matter. Given how fast AI technology has been developing, Congress should act to modernize the Patent Act to account for AIassisted or -created inventions. In the meantime, this Note suggests the USPTO, through its regulatory power, can help alleviate these concerns by creating an identification system and requiring inventors to disclose the kind of AI involved in the assistance or in the creation of subject matter in patent applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]