Just days after agreeing to review the scope of the enablement requirement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the Supreme Court denied Juno Therapeutics, Inc.’s (Juno) request to review the scope of the written description requirement. Interestingly, both cases
Latest from IP Intelligence - Page 4
Federal Circuit Develops the ‘At Once Envisage’ Standard of Anticipation and Affirms the Importance of Specialized Considerations in the Chemical Arts
Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element.[1] However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is directed to
Supreme Court to Address What it Means to Have an Enabling Disclosure
The Supreme Court has granted Amgen’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, agreeing to address what it means to provide an enabling disclosure. In particular, Amgen asked the Court to address:
Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that
Important Changes in USPTO Trademark Practices to Take Effect on Dec. 3, 2022
As part of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (reported in the IP Intelligence Blog on Dec. 23, 2021), beginning on Dec. 3, trademark applicants will have three months (with a possible three-month extension) to respond to office actions
Solicitor General Recommends that Supreme Court Accept Review of Case Involving Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Trademark Law
In a May 2022 post, we noted that the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General on whether to accept review of Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., a case involving the international reach of
Federal Circuit: AI Cannot Be a Named ‘Inventor’ Under the Patent Act
On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be listed as a named inventor on a patent application, affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Eastern
Chicago Cubs score home run in their opposition against a stylized version of the letter “C”
In many countries, marks such as single letters or numerals are considered nondistinctive. This is not so in the US, which has a very broad definition of what comprises a trademark in 15 U.S.C. Section 1127:
A trademark is any
Characterization of Claim Elements as “Conventional” Results in Section 101 Subject Matter Ineligibility
In an attempt to broaden a patent’s disclosure and provide Section 112 support for features that are not explicitly disclosed within the patent’s specification (such as reagents, assays, techniques, etc.), patent applications are often drafted with boilerplate language to indicate
A Recent Entrance to Copyright Protection: Can AI Qualify as an Author Under U.S. Copyright Law?
Should copyright protection be given for AI-generated inventions? Stephen Thaler, the president and CEO of Imagination Engines, thinks so.
The Complaint
In 2018, Thaler filed an application to register a copyright for an AI-generated work produced by one of his
Federal Circuit Hears Case on Whether an AI-Generated Invention Is Patentable
On June 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument on the issue of whether an invention generated by artificial intelligence (AI) is patentable.
The Patent Applications
As described in a companion article, which can