In this episode, we discuss the intricate landscape of patent eligibility in the United States, twin patent law decisions from the Supreme Court, and the proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and how -- if passed -- it could unlock new opportunities for innovation amid the challenges posed by judicial exceptions with seasoned patent attorney, Ryan N. Phelan of Marshall Gerstein. Listen now!
In this episode, we discuss the evolving landscape of NFTs – or non-fungible tokens – which have taken the digital world by storm – or perhaps just a downloadable picture of a storm – promising to revolutionize not only the way we perceive, protect, purchase, and own digital assets, but how we might even buy a house or other assets in the real world. Guest Cameron Pick of Marshall Gerstein draws on his expertise in intellectual property law to provide insights into the changing dynamics of NFTs and the legal issues that accompany them. Tune in now!
Take this webinar featuring Perkins Coie LLP attorneys Lisa Ortiz and Sean West to gain a better understanding of the challenge of determining human authorship in AI-generated works, the guidance and disclosure rules established by the Copyright Office, the importance of addressing copyright ownership and usage rights in AI-related license agreements, and the implications of joint ownership of AI models and output. Learn about the categories of work in which AI is being applied in the practice of law, e.g., legal research, document drafting, deposition preparation, and discovery review. Understand the various risks associated with AI, e.g., biased and inaccurate outputs, unauthorized disclosures of private data, and intellectual property infringement. Get an overview of governmental regulation and guidance. Finally, start your journey to develop best practices in establishing AI governance teams and processes with an eye toward complying with regulations and mitigating risk. Check it out!
In this episode, we talk to Robert A. McFarlane of Hanson Bridgett LLP about artificial intelligence in the world of invention and questions raised in a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that expounded on the principle that only human beings - not machines - can be named as inventors under U.S. patent law. Listen and learn more!
What's the new European patent court mean to global innovators? The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing? For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with [...]
Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]
