Michael Steel’s Post

Today, the USPTO issued new subject matter eligibility guidance for AI inventions. The most helpful parts of the guidance are the examples, which include claims that the USPTO deems subject matter eligible and ineligible. https://lnkd.in/eB6q2QNn Even though the examples and the USPTO's explanation do not have the effect of law, they are useful in guiding patent practitioners as to the types of claims to present to the USPTO.

AI has the potential to revolutionise patent examination but uneven adoption of the technology could undermine fairness in the system, says Matthew Veale of Patsnap. As both patent attorneys and patent examiners adopt these advanced technologies, the potential for an ‘arms race’ emerges, with significant implications for drafting, prosecution, search and examination processes. Read more insights here: https://ow.ly/K3fi50SKHGU #AIPatents #AIRevolution #PatentExamination

Artificial Intelligence and the Patent Application Process: A Synopsis of the Potential Benefits and Risks https://lnkd.in/g7Z5CC5i

#Ai is filled with hype but I've found a Patent Automation platform that delivers real results: senseIP. If in your role you care about Freedom to Operate, Prior Art Research, Patent Drafting and Filing, and/or Patent Management, you must take 30 minutes and join this webinar with CEO Ophir Kretzer-Katzir: https://lnkd.in/equYV6QK #Freedomtooperate, #priorartresearch, #patents, #patentsearch, #technologytransferoffice, #patentagent, #ip, #intellectualproperty

Those darn machines are just messing with everything. Earlier this week, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office put out a request for comment on the potential impacts of artificial intelligence to the application examination process. You may recall the Office previously has indicated its position that A.I. cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application. That remains true. This request has to do with the other side of the equation.  Suppose the patent examiner finds an article that predates your patent application. Ordinarily that could be held against you. But does that change if the article was written by A.I.? Those are types of questions the Office is seeking input on. There are similar questions about how A.I. should affect the standard used for examination (the “person having ordinary skill in the art” inquiry). Could there be a scenario where A.I. just spits out so much information that it invents everything all at once and now no one can get a patent? The deadline for comments is July 29. It will be interesting to see what the comments look like and how the Office ultimately responds. *Insert SkyNet joke here* #patentattorney #patentlawyer #patents #ai #technology ------------------------------------------ **Follow me for more interesting examples & useful tips regarding IP. **Got an idea you don't know what to do with? DM me!

The story of Carrie Hafeman is the pinnacle of sloppy, blatant corruption in the patent system. Why is no one focused on the Elephants in the room in Carrie's case? Does anyone know how hard it is to get an attorney these days? HARD! Carrie finally, in the 19th year of her patents, got legal support to stop her infringer, LG. Imagine going a decade after your infringers steal everything you worked for, your company destroyed, all your employees gone and finally getting your day. Carrie has spent over $300,000 in maintenance fees over the course of the last 20 years. This money goes to the UPSTO. Her money pays USPTO Director Kathi Vidals salary. Her money paid for her patents, which tell her that she has the right to stop her infringers. Carrie finally got her fight. Carrie Vs. LG. Enter the elephant(s), the bullies. Google, Microsoft and Kathi Vidal. Here are the questions we should all be asking: Why did Google and Microsoft enter Carrie's fight and request to challenge Carrie’s patents in their final year? Why did Kathi Vidal, the proclaimed supporter of women/children and minorities allow Google and Microsoft to send Carrie's patents to the PTAB to be invalidated? Why is NO ONE screaming off the rooftops on how Google and Microsoft broke the rules in doing this? The judges in the case even said they did. There is no precedent they say, so just let Google/Microsoft get away with it. Why is Kathi meddling in Carries case? What should we expect her reply brief to Carrie's case say? EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this industry should keep your eyes on this case. December 16th Vidals brief is due. US Inventor

🚀 Transform Your Patent Prosecution Workflows with Case Automations in Qthena by ipQuants AG! 🚀 Are you ready to revolutionize your patent practice? Introducing Case Automations – your new secret weapon for unparalleled efficiency and insight. 🔍 What’s New? Cross-Family Citation Tracker: Instantly discern interconnections of prior art references within a patent family, ensuring a robust understanding of the citation landscape. Patent Family Status Matrix: Get a holistic view of all family members and their current legal status, streamlining the assessment of a patent’s global stance. Prior Art Date Comparator: Directly compare your application's filing dates against the publication dates of cited prior art, making novelty and inventive step arguments a breeze. 💡 Why You’ll Love It: Save Time: Automate key examination workflows and reduce manual effort, allowing you to focus on what truly matters. Gain Insights: Access crucial insights into patent families, citation dynamics, and priority dates instantly. Cost-Effective: Enjoy pay-as-you-go activation and only incur costs for the automations you use. Qthena is here to elevate your patent examination process, providing you with the tools you need to make informed decisions faster. Ready to see Qthena in action? Schedule your demo today and discover how our new Case Automations can transform your practice! 🔗 Schedule Your Demo: https://lnkd.in/eWsw6MsJ #patents #AI #LegalTech

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 AI 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆/𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗪𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺? As many of us in the patent field know, there are several limitations to current models used for patent validity and invalidity searches. Today, I’d like to discuss one of these challenges and share how our technology addresses them to make searches more efficient and less time-consuming. 1. 𝘽𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘿𝙖𝙩𝙖 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨: We’ve trained our model using patents from a wide range of jurisdictions. With over 1,000,000 datasets included, we ensure coverage of both historical and recent patents to account for evolving patentability standards and technological trends. We’ve also diversified the dataset across various technical fields and incorporated court rulings on patent litigation to better understand validity in real-world scenarios. Additionally, the model is regularly tested and refined by patent examiners, legal experts, and technical specialists to maintain its robustness. 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨? #patents #validitysearches #randd #intellectualproperty #litigence

Great points, Carrie Hafeman. Time for PTAB APJs should revisit and apply MPEP 2143 when deciding whether two or more references in combination would render obvious a claim in an issued patent. A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. USPTO, Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, #PTAB, #APJ, #patent, #validity, #AI, #IP, #MPEP

The USPTO has issued a 2024 guidance update on #patent subject-matter eligibility to address innovation in critical and emerging technologies (ET), especially #artificial #intelligence (AI). The guidance update, which goes into effect on July 17, 2024, provides an overview on the USPTO’s efforts related to AI and subject-matter eligibility, as well as discussions of Federal Circuit decisions on subject-matter eligibility, and three new examples on certain areas of the guidance that are particularly relevant to #AI inventions. 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. Link to the Guidance Update: https://lnkd.in/db-JzGHe USPTO press release: https://lnkd.in/d2AZKyC7