Eversheds Sutherland’s Post

The German Federal Supreme Court has ruled that an #AI system cannot be named as an inventor. At the same time, a series of decisions issued the European Patent Office, US Supreme Court and UK Supreme Court confirmed that any #patent application referring to AI as the inventor is doomed to fail. In this article, Dr. Anette Gaertner, Nils Müller and Jannick Thonemann discuss the key learnings from the “DABUS” case and the implications for AI and patent law. Read more: https://lnkd.in/etn-f9Tf #IntellectualProperty

The UK Intellectual Property Office faces Artificial Intelligence (AI) challenge. The impact of AI is being felt all around us, but a recent judgement by the UK Courts, has shone a light on UK patent law that looks likely to require a re-think. #UKIPO #patents #intellectualproperty #ai

🚀 Tech Tuesday Insight! 🤖 Exploring the Legal Implications of AI as Inventors: UK Patent Law Perspective. In this article, we dive into the question of whether AI can be designated as the "inventor" under UK patent law, focusing on a case involving Dr. Thaler and his AI machine, "DABUS." Reach out to our Technology Practice Group, Ong Johnson and Khai Yi Lo, to explore further on AI technology and intellectual property law. Read full article here: https://lnkd.in/gVPuz5Yn #technology #artificialintelligence #patentlaw #intellectualproperty

This is a short coverage on the "DABUS" case. The UK court has ruled that an AI cannot be considered as an "inventor" when it comes to patent application. While it is good that this provides some form of clarity, it remains to be seen whether the outcome will be different if a natural person inventor tries to secure patent protection in respect of an invention that was created with the help of AI. Assuming that all the patentability criteria are met, there should not be any reason for the patent not to be granted. #AI #patent #patentlaw #IP

Will the skilled person in patent law become super-human with the help of AI? 👉 Full Q&A: https://lnkd.in/di4aVkK6 👉 Join the next live Q&A: https://lnkd.in/dwVAZr4V   #patentingAI #patents #artificialintelligence

In the Bloomberg Law article “Patent AI Notice Spurs Concerns of Dueling Disclosure Priorities,” Knobbe Martens partner Mauricio Uribe provided additional commentary and analysis of how the US Patent and Trademark Office’s latest guidance on using AI in patent filings could impact practitioners. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gs3h6Phh #KnobbeMartens #IPLaw #AI

Creating patentable AI inventions according to EPO standards. Robert Klinski [羅克林], founder of PATENTSHIP Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, explains the patentability criteria for filling a grantable application for AI inventions at the European Patent Office. Read the full article here on page 49 👉 https://lnkd.in/eJ3Zq2sR #patent #lawyer #patentable #criteria #artificialintelligence #AI #EPO #filing #application #inventions #IPlaw

ICYMI over the Christmas break, there have been more developments in the on-going AI inventorship and patent law saga.    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that only a human can be an ‘inventor’ in patent law.    In his latest blog, Patent Attorney Tom Woodhouse explains why he thinks the furore surrounding the ruling is missing the point, and perhaps a more significant decision might have been reached if Dr Thaler (the human in this case) had named himself as the inventor, rather than his DABUS machine, and a challenge had been mounted on the basis that Dr Thaler was not an inventor because of the specific involvement of AI. In that scenario, the UKIPO or court might have been forced to address the factual question of whether Dr Thaler was the human inventor.   Read Tom’s thoughts online at https://lnkd.in/eBPmjrFC   The debate around AI inventorship and patent law looks set to continue in 2024. #artificialintelligence #ai #machinelearning #patentlaw #intellectualproperty #innovation

BREAKING: AI Can't Be Patent Inventor, Top UK Court Rules The U.K.'s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an artificial intelligence cannot be the named inventor of a patent under current legislation, concluding that British law requires a "natural person" to be behind an invention. AI researcher Stephen Thaler failed to persuade the country's top court that he programmed his artificial intelligence DABUS only with the knowledge required to invent so he therefore could not be considered the person behind any creations devised by the machine under law. To understand more about this landmark decision visit Law360 UK Intellectual Property. #intellectualproperty #ai #artificialintelligence

What do companies need to know about the potential impact of AI on patent law? Learn more in this Q&A article with Kit Crumbley and Legaltech News. #copyrightlaw #ai #litigation