USPTO issues AI subject matter eligibility guidance; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), July 16, 2024

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ; USPTO issues AI subject matter eligibility guidance

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a guidance update on patent subject matter eligibility to address innovation in critical and emerging technologies, including in artificial intelligence (AI). This guidance update will assist USPTO personnel and stakeholders in determining subject matter eligibility under patent law (35 § U.S.C. 101) of AI inventions. This latest update builds on previous guidance by providing further clarity and consistency to how the USPTO and applicants should evaluate subject matter eligibility of claims in patent applications and patents involving inventions related to AI technology. The guidance update also announces three new examples of how to apply this guidance throughout a wide range of technologies. 

The guidance update, which goes into effect on July 17, 2024, provides a background on the USPTO’s efforts related to AI and subject matter eligibility, an overview of the USPTO’s patent subject matter eligibility guidance, and additional discussion on certain areas of the guidance that are particularly relevant to AI inventions, including discussions of Federal Circuit decisions on subject matter eligibility. 

“The USPTO remains committed to fostering and protecting innovation in critical and emerging technologies, including AI,” said Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. “We look forward to hearing public feedback on this guidance update, which will provide further clarity on evaluating subject matter eligibility of AI inventions while incentivizing innovations needed to solve world and community problems.” 

The three new examples provide additional analyses under 35 § U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims in certain situations to address particular inquiries, such as whether a claim recites an abstract idea or whether a claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are intended to assist USPTO personnel in applying the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance to AI inventions during patent examination, appeal, and post-grant proceedings. The examples are available on our AI-related resources webpage and our patent eligibility page on our website.  

The USPTO continues to be directly involved in the development of legal and policy measures related to the impact of AI on all forms of intellectual property. The guidance update delivers on the USPTO’s obligations under the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence o provide guidance to examiners and the public on the impact of AI and issues at the intersection of AI and IP, including patent subject matter eligibility. This follows our announcement earlier this year on Inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions, as well as AI guidance for practitioners and a request for comments on the impact of AI on certain patentability considerations, including what qualifies as prior art and the assessment of the level of ordinary skills in the art (comments accepted until July 29, 2024). 

The full text of the guidance update on patent subject matter eligibility is available on our Latest AI news and reports webpageand the corresponding examples are available on our AI-related resources webpage. The USPTO will accept public comments on the guidance update and the examples through September 16, 2024. Please see the Federal Register Notice for instructions on submitting comments."

Public Symposium on AI and IP; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10 AM - 3 PM PT/1 PM - 6 PM ET

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Public Symposium on AI and IP

"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Emerging Technologies (ET) Partnership will hold a public symposium on intellectual property (IP) and AI. The event will take place virtually and in-person at Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, California, on March 27, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. PT. 

The symposium will facilitate the USPTO’s efforts to implement its obligations under the President’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14110 “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The event will include representation from the Copyright Office, build on previous AI/Emerging Technologies (ET) partnership events, and feature panel discussions by experts in the field of patent, trademark, and copyright law that focus on:

1. A comparison of copyright and patent law approaches to the type and level of human contribution needed to satisfy authorship and inventorship requirements;
2. Ongoing copyright litigation involving generative AI; and 
3. A discussion of laws and policy considerations surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL) issues, including the intersection of NIL and generative AI.

This event is free and open to the public, but in-person attendance is limited, so register early"

AI cannot patent inventions, UK Supreme Court confirms; BBC, December 20, 2023

 BBC ; AI cannot patent inventions, UK Supreme Court confirms

"The UK Supreme Court has upheld earlier decisions in rejecting a bid to allow an artificial intelligence to be named as an inventor in a patent application.

Technologist Dr Stephen Thaler had sought to have his AI, called Dabus, recognised as the inventor of a food container and a flashing light beacon."

The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market; The New York Times, October 30, 2023

  Peter Coy, The New York Times; The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market

"Masimo argues that Apple’s reputation for innovation is undeserved and that the company has made a practice of “efficient infringement” — using other companies’ technologies without permission and dealing with the legal fallout as necessary. The company points to something that Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, said in 1996: “Picasso had a saying. He said, ‘Good artists copy; great artists steal.’ And we have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Apple, of course, rejects this characterization and says the company respects other companies’ intellectual property. In Apple’s defense, it’s fair to assume that Jobs was speaking metaphorically, and not copping to a crime, when he said that the company stole."

How a Drug Maker Profited by Slow-Walking a Promising H.I.V. Therapy; The New York Times, July 22, 2023

 Rebecca Robbins and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, The New York Times; How a Drug Maker Profited by Slow-Walking a Promising H.I.V. Therapy

"Gilead, one of the world’s largest drugmakers, appeared to be embracing a well-worn industry tactic: gaming the U.S. patent system to protect lucrative monopolies on best-selling drugs...

Gilead ended up introducing a version of the new treatment in 2015, nearly a decade after it might have become available if the company had not paused development in 2004. Its patents now extend until at least 2031.

The delayed release of the new treatment is now the subject of state and federal lawsuits in which some 26,000 patients who took Gilead’s older H.I.V. drugs claim that the company unnecessarily exposed them to kidney and bone problems."

AMP v. Myriad: The Fight to Take Back Our Genes; ACLU, June 13, 2023

Lora Strum , ACLU; AMP v. Myriad: The Fight to Take Back Our Genes

"Ten years after the Supreme Court invalidated the patents on two human genes in AMP v. Myriad, we revisit the landmark case amid renewed calls for gene patenting."

Chinese scientists ask for patent on US drug to fight virus; Associated Press, February 6, 2020

Joe McDonald and Linda A. Johnson, Associated Press; Chinese scientists ask for patent on US drug to fight virus

"China has the right under World Trade Organization rules to declare an emergency and compel a company to license a patent to protect the public. It would be required to pay a license fee that is deemed fair market value. 

The government might be able to avoid that fee if the patent were granted to the Wuhan institute, part of the elite Chinese Academy of Sciences. 

The institute said it applied for a “use patent” that specifies the Wuhan virus as the drug’s target. Gilead’s patent application, filed before the virus was identified, cites only the overall family of coronaviruses."

Is ‘Balanced Intellectual Property’ Code For ‘Anti-Intellectual Property’?; Above The Law, June 28, 2018

Krista L. Cox, Above The Law;

Is ‘Balanced Intellectual Property’ Code For ‘Anti-Intellectual Property’?

 

"The copyright and patent system in the United States acknowledges both the need to incentivize innovation as well as the need for public access. It is a utilitarian view that promotes further creation. Advocating for a system that incentivizes the creator or inventor while simultaneously protecting the interest of the public isn’t an anti-intellectual property stance, it’s one that encourages more creative works and innovations."

Equity pending: Why so few women receive patents; The Christian Science Monitor, July 2, 2018

E'oin O'Carroll, The Christian Science Monitor; Equity pending: Why so few women receive patents

"The causes for the gender gap are varied and complex, but much of it can be explained by women’s underrepresentation in patent-intensive jobs, particularly engineering. Research shows women make up roughly 20 percent of graduates from engineering schools, but hold less than 15 percent of engineering jobs. Female engineering grads are not entering the field at the same rate as their male counterparts, and they are leaving in far greater numbers.

“It’s the climate,” says Nadya Fouad, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “The organizational environment is very unforgiving.”

Professor Fouad, who spent three years surveying women with engineering degrees about their career choices, cites inflexible schedules, a lack of opportunities for advancement, and incivility toward women. “It’s not the women’s fault,” she says, noting that she found no difference in levels of confidence in those who stayed and those who left.

Other barriers women face are an absence of supportive social networks and implicit bias on the part of venture capitalists."

33rd Annual ABA Intellectual Property Law Conference, April 18-20, 2018

33rd Annual ABA Intellectual Property Law Conference, Arlington, Virginia

[Kip Currier: The April 19th Conference sessions I attended were outstanding. Particularly thought-provoking was the "Ethical Issues in Emerging Technology" session, with panelists discussing legal, ethical, and policy implications of Wearable Technologies (e.g. FitBits), 3D Printers, and Autonomous Vehicles.

I'll be posting some highlights and photos from the sessions in the next few days.]

Friday, April 20

6:30 am – 7:45 am	LGBT Diversity Run/Walk
7:30 am – 5:00 pm	Registration • Print Café • Sponsors
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Patent: Standards Essential Patent & the Internet of Things
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Trademark/Ethics: Ethical Issues in Trademark Practice
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Copyright: International Copyright Transactions
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Patent: State of Subject Matter Eligibility Law: Its Impact on the Incentive to Innovate
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Trademark: The Dark Side of Knockoffs
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Copyright: Fair Use or Not Fair Use, that is the Question
12:00 pm – 1:30 pm	Women in IP Law Luncheon
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Specialty: Canada: More than Just Justin Trudeau
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Trademark: Current State of the Dilution Doctrine - TamImpact
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Copyright: Music Licensing 101: Understanding the Basics
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Patent/Ethics: Current Trends and Ethical Implications in IP Monetization and Litigation Financing
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Specialty: DarkNet: Enter at Your Own Risk
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Specialty: Preserving Attorney Client Privilege When Your Clients Go Global

33rd Annual ABA Intellectual Property Law Conference, April 18-20, 2018

33rd Annual ABA Intellectual Property Law Conference, Arlington, Virginia

[Kip Currier: 1st full day of this year's American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Conference. Lots of intriguing sessions to choose from...case in point, the 10:15 AM slot has two concurrent ones I want to attend--Trademark/Ethics: Ethical Issues in Emerging Technology and Copyright: Copyright Law and Policy Developments.

I'm also attending the Mark T. Banner luncheon today, featuring Simon Tam of the band The Slants and his legal team, who last year won a major federal trademark law case, Matal v. Tam (previously Lee v. Tam), involving so-called disparaging trademarks. The case presented potentially significant implications for free speech and economic interests. Tam and his band spoke as part of a very thought-provoking panel at Duquesne University last April, before the U.S. Supreme Court had announced its decision in June 2017. The Slants prevailed, in a unanimous decision.

I talked with Tam after the April 2017 panel about the case and he insisted on having his bandmates sign the band's poster I'd purchased.

It will be interesting to hear thoughts from the various parties a year later, regarding post-Matal v. Tam implications...]


Thursday, April 19

7:00 am – 5:00 pm	Registration • Print Café • Sponsors
7:15 am – 8:30 am	Conference Connections New Members • First-Time Attendees • Young Lawyers
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Patent: Impact of Heartland on District Court Litigation
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Trademark: From the Practitioners' Perspectives: Managing Discovery in Trademark Cases: TTAB vs. Federal Court
8:30 am – 10:00 am	Copyright/Social Media: #Ad Disclosures
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Patent: Ask the Office: Hot Topics with the USPTO Commissioner for Patents
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Trademark/Ethics: Ethical Issues in Emerging Technology
10:15 am – 11:45 am	Copyright: Copyright Law and Policy Developments
12:00 pm – 1:30 pm	Mark T. Banner Award Luncheon Honoring Simon Tam and his legal team during a special presentation.
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Patent: Coming Together: Worlds Apart
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Trademark: Proving a Negative: Best Practices for Prosecuting and Defending Non-Use Abandonment Proceedings in the US & Abroad
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm	Copyright: The Right of Publicity
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Specialty: Growing Your Start-Up IP Practice
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Trademark/Copyright: Fictional Characters in 3D
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm	Specialty/Ethics: Multijurisdictional Practice and the Modern Ethical IP Attorney

Patenting the Future of Medicine: The Intersection of Patent Law and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine; Lexology, February 14, 2018

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP - Susan Y. Tull, Lexology; Patenting the Future of Medicine: The Intersection of Patent Law and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the world of medicine, and the intellectual property directed to these inventions must keep pace. AI computers are diagnosing medical conditions and disorders at a rate equal to or better than their human peers, all while developing their own software code and algorithms to do so. These recent advances raise issues of patentability, inventorship, and ownership as machine-based learning evolves."

Webinar: Understanding Patent Basics: Law Librarians Bringing Added Value June 28, 2017, 2pm ET

Webinar

Understanding Patent Basics:

Law Librarians Bringing Added Value

June 28, 2pm ET

As a law librarian you serve a wide array of lawyers so you may not have a background specific to patent law. Many law librarians feel they could be more productive if they could better communicate in patent attorney "speak" and may feel awkward in asking for definitions of basic patent terminology.

As part of our efforts to offer on-going support to law librarians, LexisNexis IP Solutions is offering a crash course in basic patent concepts to help you better communicate with your colleagues.

Join us for this informative webinar which will demystify patent terminology and review basic concepts. The presenters will discuss:

• Common terms in patent law, such as "What is a provisional patent application?"
• What patents lawyers are looking for in terms of help from their law librarians relevant to common concepts.
• Why research related to each of these terms, or concepts, are important in the area of patent prosecution.
• Q&A to answer those questions you have been meaning to ask.
  
  Sign up today! We will provide slides from the webinar to all registrants.
  
  The presenters are Amantha Allen, User Experience and Professional Development Manager, LexisNexis^® IP Solutions and Megan McLoughlin, Product Director, LexisNexis PatentAdvisor® 

Want Your Marijuana Startup to Succeed? Study Patent Law; Wired, 11/5/16

Mason Marks, Wired; Want Your Marijuana Startup to Succeed? Study Patent Law:

"...[M]any players in the legal marijuana industry are skeptical of the patent system. Some view patents as an ugly instrument of big business linked to over-priced drugs and other abuses. At a recent event for cannabis entrepreneurs in San Francisco, marijuana growers, manufacturers, and retailers gathered to discuss the current state of their industry. At one point the conversation turned to patent law. Many participants expressed anger and disbelief at the notion of patenting cannabis technology. One attendee stood up and exclaimed, “At least you can’t patent plants! They are part of nature!” But her assertion was incorrect. There is no prohibition against patenting plants and other living organisms. In fact, nearly any invention can be patented as long as it meets a few basic requirements—and surprisingly, being legal under federal law is not one of them...

Whether you approve of cannabis patents or not, they are taking root in this multi-billion dollar industry. The upcoming votes and changing regulatory landscape will likely help them grow. To be fully prepared, anyone entering the cannabis industry should learn the fundamentals of patent law."

Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling; Fortune, 10/3/16

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling:

"Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech

Friday’s ruling is also significant because Judge Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.

Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as “fair use” and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as “Section 101,” which says some things—including abstract ideas—simply can’t be patented in the first place."