Podcasts about Patentability

You cannot get a patent if your invention is obvious. This can be tricky to determine for biotech and pharmaceutical patents. There are competing standards for how this is determined. One is the "reasonable expectation of success" standard, which is a lower threshold than the "predictable results" standard. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that would have settled this, so we're left with the Federal Circuit's ruling in the case of Vanda Pharmaceuticals vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals. Listen to this episode to learn how these tests can give different results for patentability and what it means for the future biotech and drug patents!

The latest episode of the "Capitalist Investor" podcast featured hosts Tony and Luke with special guest Mike Hudzinski, a prominent patent attorney from Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland. The trio delved into the intricate world of AI, patents, and the broader economic landscape. Here are five hot topics from the episode that shed light on the future of technology, law, and the economy.1. Patentability of AI Algorithms: The Human ElementOne of the primary discussions revolved around the complexities of patenting AI algorithms. Mike Hudzinski clarified that “you can't patent a naked algorithm because it can be performed by a human.” For an algorithm to be patentable, it must produce a result that could not be achieved manually with pen, paper, and a calculator. This distinction underscores the need for a significant innovation component to secure patent rights.2. Obviousness in Software Patenting: Novelty vs. PatentabilityThe conversation moved to the difference between novelty and patentability in software. Tony and Mike discussed how small changes in code, such as a slight alteration within a complex algorithm, might not meet the threshold for patentable innovation. The key lies in whether these changes are obvious to an ordinary programmer. If a minor adjustment leads to a significant improvement, it might be considered for patenting, otherwise not.3. AI Writing Its Own Code: Legal ImplicationsAs AI technology advances, there's growing curiosity about whether AI can patent its self-generated code. Mike pointed out new federal regulations stipulating that patents must be created by humans. According to United States code, the claimed invention needs to be human-made, thus keeping AI-generated inventions outside patent eligibility. This maintains a critical human oversight in the innovation process.4. Errors and Reliability of AI: Real-World ConsequencesA discussion on the reliability of AI unraveled some of its limitations. Tony referred to an incident where an attorney cited erroneous legal information generated by AI, leading to significant problems. Mike emphasized that both professionals and students must verify AI-generated outputs. Generative AI, although powerful, relies on the data it has been trained on and is prone to inaccuracies, which can have far-reaching consequences in critical fields like law.5. Economic Impact of AI on Jobs: A Double-Edged SwordThe episode concluded with a preview of upcoming discussions on the economic impact of AI, particularly job displacement. While AI is poised to enhance efficiency and productivity in various sectors, it could also lead to job loss. As Tony noted, the implementation of AI might result in what seems like "job destruction." The conversation will continue in future episodes, exploring the balance between technological advancements and the preservation of the job market.The Capitalist Investor podcast continues to provide valuable insights into how emerging technologies intersect with legal frameworks and economic realities. Stay tuned for upcoming discussions, including public vs. private sector job dynamics and the impact of electric vehicles (EVs) on the economy.For those seeking to navigate these complex issues, the episode reaffirms the importance of staying informed and consulting with qualified professionals. Whether you're an investor, a tech enthusiast, or just curious about the future, these conversations are crucial for understanding the rapidly evolving landscape.**Disclaimer:** The opinions expressed in the podcast are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any investment, legal, financial, or tax strategy. Please consult a qualified professional about your individual needs.

There is a new standard for determining whether a design is obvious (and not patentable).  The "old" rigid test called the Rosen-Durling test has been supplanted by a more flexible approach under the recently decided case of LKQ Corporation vs GM Global Technology Operations LLC. In this episode, learn how this new test is applied and why more of your design patent applications might get rejected for obviousness. ------- E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn

IP in the Digital Environment Software and Digital Media Copyright Protection: Software and digital media are primarily protected under copyright law. Software Licensing: Various licensing models, such as open-source and proprietary licenses, dictate how software can be used, modified, and distributed. Digital Rights Management (DRM): Technologies designed to prevent unauthorized copying and use of digital media. Legal Considerations Infringement and Enforcement: Identifying and prosecuting copyright infringement in the digital realm is complex due to the global nature of the internet and the anonymity it can provide. Fair Use and Exceptions: Balancing the rights of IP holders with those of users, particularly in contexts like education and research, where fair use exceptions might apply. Case Law Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC: A landmark case addressing whether the use of Java APIs in Android constitutes fair use. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Key Issues Patenting Life Forms: The extent to which living organisms, genetic sequences, and biotechnological inventions can be patented. Ethical and Moral Considerations: Balancing IP protection with ethical concerns, such as the impact on biodiversity, human rights, and public health. Legal Considerations Patent Eligibility: Determining what constitutes patentable subject matter in biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs), gene editing technologies like CRISPR, and synthetic biology. Regulatory Compliance: Navigating the complex regulatory frameworks that govern biotechnology, which can vary significantly between jurisdictions. Case Law Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A seminal Supreme Court case that allowed for the patenting of a genetically modified bacterium, establishing that living organisms could be patented if they are the product of human ingenuity. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: Addressed whether human genes could be patented. Artificial Intelligence and IP Key Issues Authorship and Ownership: Determining who owns the IP rights to creations generated by AI, such as artwork, music, or inventions. Patentability of AI Innovations: Assessing whether AI-generated inventions meet the criteria for patent protection, including inventiveness and non-obviousness. Legal Considerations AI as an Inventor: Current IP laws generally require a human inventor. The question of whether AI can be recognized as an inventor is hotly debated. Data and Training Sets: Protecting the data used to train AI systems, which often involves large datasets that may include copyrighted material. Case Law Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents: A case in which the Federal Court of Australia ruled that AI could be listed as an inventor on a patent application. Future Trends and Legislative Changes Key Trends Harmonization of IP Laws: Efforts to harmonize IP laws across jurisdictions to facilitate global trade and reduce complexity for multinational companies. Digital Transformation: Adapting IP laws to better protect digital assets and address issues like cyber piracy and the protection of digital identities. Legislative Changes Copyright Modernization: Updating copyright laws to better reflect the realities of the digital age, such as shorter terms of protection for digital works or more flexible fair use provisions. Patent Law Reforms: Revisiting patent eligibility criteria, particularly in fields like biotechnology and AI, to encourage innovation while balancing public interest. Case Law and Policy Developments European Union's Digital Single Market Directive: Aims to modernize copyright rules to facilitate digital trade within the EU. US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) AI Initiative: Exploring how AI impacts patent law, including the potential need for legislative changes to accommodate AI-generated inventions --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this episode of Patent Pending Made Simple, Jamie and Samar interview Stephen Key, one of the foremost experts in the world of patent licensing.  They discuss the patent licensing process, the role of a provisional patent application in that process, steps to bringing an idea to market, prototyping, prior art searches, and so much more!SummaryStephen Key, a patent licensing expert, shares his insights on how to protect and commercialize ideas. He emphasizes the importance of focusing on the benefits of an idea rather than just the features. Key recommends starting with a Google search to see if the idea already exists and then reaching out to companies that may be interested in licensing the idea. He suggests using tools like provisional patent applications, sell sheets, and videos to test the market interest before investing in prototypes. Key also discusses the importance of teamwork with patent attorneys and agents to create a valuable patent.TakeawaysFocus on the benefits of an idea rather than just the features.Start with a Google search to see if the idea already exists.Reach out to companies that may be interested in licensing the idea.Use tools like provisional patent applications, sell sheets, and videos to test market interest before investing in prototypes.Work with patent attorneys and agents as a team to create a valuable patent.00:00 Welcome to the Patent Pending Made Simple Podcast00:15 Introducing Stephen Key: The Patent Licensing Expert00:48 Stephen's Journey: From Ideas to Innovation03:16 Demystifying the Patent Process for Inventors04:35 The Initial Steps of Bringing an Idea to Market07:12 Licensing Ideas: Stephen's Strategy for Success08:42 Prototyping and Testing: Essential Steps Before Patenting11:38 The Power of Provisional Patent Applications14:05 Testing Your Invention in the Real World17:17 Stephen's Advice on Prototyping and Filing for Patents19:55 Navigating Patent Applications: Insights and Strategies20:40 The Importance of Matching Claims with Business Objectives22:10 Leveraging Patents as Negotiation Tools23:29 Crafting Patents with Manufacturing and Detail in Mind27:01 The Role of Prior Art in Shaping Patent Strategy27:28 Building a Strong Team Beyond the Patent28:28 A Real-World Example: Overcoming Prior Art Challenges33:32 The Art of Patent Writing: A Collaborative Approach36:55 Closing Thoughts and Appreciation

Show Notes: Anastasia Fernands has been practicing law since graduating from NYU. She started practicing in Boston at Hutchins, Wheeler and Dittmar, which was the oldest continuously running firm in Boston. Anastasia has since moved to New York to practice at Quinn Emanuel. Anastasia's career primarily focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation in the mid to late 90s. While at Hutchins, Wheeler, there were two schools of thought on patent litigation: technical people who understood technology and those not necessarily litigators by trade. There was a shift for litigators who weren't necessarily experts in technology to be involved in patent litigation.   The Initial Stages of Patent Litigation Patent litigation starts with someone receiving a patent from the patent office. If the patent owner thinks someone is infringing, they either reach out in a friendly business manner or send a cease and desist letter. Once the patent is issued, a complaint is filed, and sometimes even a motion for preliminary injunction is filed to try to enjoin the competitor from selling the accused infringing product. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are local patent rules in many jurisdictions. Once the complaint is filed, there is an answer, a scheduling conference, and, in jurisdictions that have patent rules, a number of specific deadlines. The preliminary phase involves exchanging information about how to interpret the patent, exchange documents, take depositions, and have expert discovery where experts give their opinions on infringement and invalidity, as well as other issues.   Statutory and Prosecution Latches Explained In patent litigation, there are two types of latches: statutory and prosecution latches. Statutory latches allow damages to be returned if less than six years, while prosecution latches occur during the lifecycle of a patent application. If a party continues to file with the patent office, prosecution latches can kick in, where the accused party claims they didn't have a claim that covered a patent they filed 10-12-15 years into prosecution. Some patents cover internal processes within a company. If a competitor sells a product infringing on their patent, the patent owner may plead in their complaint on information and belief. This involves claiming that the patent owner believes that using their process is the only way to achieve a certain characteristic in a product.   A Discussion on High-profile Litigation Cases Anastasia talks about her involvement in Samsung versus Apple and Apple vs. Samsung. Her role was to be a member of the team in various trials and appeals, and she was on the team from the beginning of the case through trial for the Northern District of California litigations. Anastasia also shares her experiences in pharmaceutical and biologics cases, highlighting the challenges of patent law. She discusses Section 101, which determines whether a patent claims patent-eligible subject matter. Invalidity can occur due to the nature of the subject matter, such as if something is naturally occurring or a large law of nature. The patent office and patentee must advance the art to obtain exclusive rights for their invention. A patent must provide adequate written description and sufficient information for a skilled person to recreate it.   Anastasia reflects on her understanding of the world and how it has changed over the years as a patent litigator.  For example, she wonders if AI could be patented and if it would have become a popular invention.   Misconceptions about the Patent System Anastasia discusses the misconceptions people have about the patent system, particularly regarding the concept of patentable ideas. She explains that just because an idea is great doesn't mean it meets all the requirements for statutory patentability. She discusses the difference between trademark, copyright, and patent, and the different types of intellectual property rights each covers. Anastasia cites the Supreme Court case of the Myriad, which revolved around a link between the BRCA gene and breast cancer. She also discusses the concept of section 101, which determines whether a subject matter is patentable. Anastasia explains that abstract ideas, which are not patentable subject matter, are often used in computer technology to analyze whether a human thought process was used without any advance in computer technology. This aspect falls under section 101, not patentable subject matter, which has been a hot topic in law over the last 10-15 years. As advancements in science and the human genome continue to link specific genes to specific conditions, there is a tension between the remarkable advancements in identifying genes that correlate with specific conditions and the notion that a naturally occurring gene cannot be patented.   Patenting AI Generated Ideas The conversation turns to the possibility of patenting an AI-generated idea using Chat via Chat GPT. They discuss the potential for a computer-assisted story to be copyrightable and the question of whether using technology to assist in idea formulation does not prevent patentability. They also discuss the possibility of independent AI agents submitting ideas to the patent office. Anastasia explains that patents currently have humans identified as inventors, but it would be interesting to see if AI programs could also be considered as inventors. This could lead to a new profession of individuals renting themselves out as agents to AI bots, potentially resulting in inequitable conduct in front of the patent office.    Influential Harvard Professors and Courses Anastasia talks about why she chose to pursue a career in patent litigation and who influenced her decision. At Harvard, some of the courses that resonated with her include Shakespeare, The Early Plays, Eckhart Simon's Medieval Court, and Imagine Michelangelo, and her tutor in Government History, Michelle Friedman.   Timestamps: 03:49 Patent litigation stages and latches 08:59 Patent law and litigation involving smartphones and pharmaceuticals 13:55 Patent law and its applications 21:21 Patentability of natural gene discoveries and AI-assisted inventions 26:43 Patent law and AI inventorship 32:15 Harvard experiences   Links: https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/fernands-anastasia-m/  

Question: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future… The post MPEP Q & A 286: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

For transcript and show notes, visit: https://outlierpatentattorneys.com/patent-pending-made-simple/podcast/episodes/3 In this episode of Patent Pending Made Simple Podcast, Jamie and Samar discuss the differences between patentability opinions and patent infringement opinions. What is the difference, and when should you think about these concepts in your patent journey. Introduction to the podcast (00:02) Hosted by Samar Shah and Jamie Brophy Catching Up (00:08-00:50) Topic: Differences between patentability and patent infringement (00:51) Initial discussion of the two concepts (01:13-02:41) Just because you get a patent on something does not mean that you're not infringing on something, so you could still be infringing on somebody else's patent. Is having a patent a good defense to infringement? ⁠4:02⁠ A client has a patent and they can still infringe on somebody else's patent, both of which can happen simultaneously. Having a patent is not a good defense to patent infringement. Courts may not allow you to present that kind of evidence to a jury. The different types of opinions that practitioners can draft: patentability, non-infringement, and freedom to operate. Patentability opinions are straightforward, while infringement opinions are more complicated. The importance of a patentability opinion. 7:57 Patentability analysis gives a good idea of whether a patent application will be rejected or not. It also gives an idea of what elements to focus on in the application to get a patent. Litigation can cost upwards of $100,000 on the search itself. The patentability opinion and the infringement opinions are very very different. In infringement, you have to interpret the claim language and determine what is meant by each of those terms in the claims and that is kind of complicated. The importance of non-infringement opinions. 12:09 When writing a non-infringement opinion letter, the quality of the opinion letter becomes very important, and the level of analysis that has been done is very important. What to recommend to clients who want to know if they are infringing on something, and how to handle it. Advice to those who want to do an initial search to see if they infringe someone else's patent before launching something. Information disclosure statements ⁠16:50⁠ Software patents are written often in a way that is indecipherable to clients. It is hard for the client to make a decision on whether the disclosure is relevant to their invention. Information Disclosure Statements: The information disclosure statement is an ethical obligation to tell the patent office about references to the invention. Cost considerations and ethical obligation to disclose relevant references (17:49-18:12) Working with an attorney to establish search parameters and track references (19:01-19:23) Conclusion and Closing Remarks (19:40) Recap of key points discussed (19:49-19:57) Disclaimer about legal advice and opinions expressed (20:27-20:44) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/patentpending/message

Patentability of ‘Selection Inventions' has been a hotly contested issue in India, especially in the context of pharmaceutical inventions. A selection patent is one whose subject matter (compounds or compositions) forms part of a larger known class or Markush structure of compounds which is the subject matter of a prior patent. A selection patent, referred to as species patent, has a specific coverage while the prior patent, referred to as genus patent, has a broader coverage. Recently, two decisions of the Delhi High Court have adjudicated patentability of the species patent with respect to the genus patent as part of infringement proceedings.Link: Patentability of Selection Inventions – Analysis of recent Delhi High Court decisions | Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys (lakshmisri.com)Audio Source:  An article published on the LKS website in April 2023.Authors: Gursimran Singh Narula, Associate and Vindhya S. Mani Associate Partner, LKS

Question: How do examiners evaluate integration into a practical application? Answer: Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Many of these considerations overlap, and often more than one consideration is relevant to analysis of an additional element. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the… The post MPEP Q & A 264: How do examiners evaluate integration into a practical application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Webcast URL: https://knowledgewebcasts.com/know-portfolio/patentability-of-ml-ai-cle/ Today, the proliferation of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) is significantly changing the business landscape. Businesses across all industries have been utilizing ML/AI applications in their day-to-day business operations. Thus, becoming indispensable in keeping a competitive advantage. However, along with these advantages are issues and debates on whether these software-based inventions are eligible for patent protection. While the number of AI patent application filings has continued its increasing trend, patent-eligibility rejections are also notable. Thus, posing significant challenges to ML/AI owners. Listen as The Knowledge Group presents a panel of key thought leaders as they discuss the most significant issues in the ML/AI and software patent space. The distinguished speakers will also share insights and strategic practices to successfully navigate through the complexities and pitfalls in the patent landscape. For more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.

Question: What is meant by a fundamental economic practice or principle? Answer: The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term “fundamental” is not used in the sense of necessarily being “old” or “well-known.” However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision… The post MPEP Q & A 261: What is meant by a fundamental economic practice or principle? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When do members of a Markush group share a ‘single structural similarity'? Answer: Members of a Markush group share a “single structural similarity” when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class (prong 1) and the members of a Markush group share a common function or use when they are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent (prong 2). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th… The post MPEP Q & A 255: When do members of a Markush group share a ‘single structural similarity'? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

In this episode of the podcast, Joe interviews James Lanthier, the CEO of Mindset Pharma; a biotechnology company discovering and developing new (and hopefully safer, more predictable, and more palatable) psychedelic compounds. www.psychedelicstoday.com

Dr. Hubertus Schacht Interview About the Nagoya Protocol – Implications for Enforcement of Patents and Patentability – Interview with Patent Judge Dr. Hubertus Schacht – Episode 130 – IP Fridays Please note that this interview only reflects the personal views of Dr. Hubertus Schacht and does not represent the legal opinion of the court. Hubertus [...] The post Biopirate or Inventor? Interview about the Nagoya Protocol – Implications for Enforcement of Patents and Patentability – Interview with Patent Judge Hubertus Schacht – Episode 130 – IP Fridays first appeared on IP Fridays ®.

Question: How is the effective filing date of a claimed invention determined? Answer: The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer come from section 2133.01 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 2133.01.… The post MPEP Q & A 245: How is the effective filing date of a claimed invention determined? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

In this vlog, Prof. Laura Pedraza-Fariña (Northwestern) discusses her paper "A Network Theory of Patentability" with PhD student Margaritha Windisch (ETH Zurich). Patent law is built upon a fundamental premise: only significant inventions receive patent protection while minor improvements remain in the public domain. Despite its importance, the doctrine that performs this gate keeping role — non-obviousness — has long remained indeterminate and vague. In their article, Laura Pedraza-Fariña and her co-author Prof. Ryan Whalen (University of Hongkong) draw on network theory, a novel approach answering the questions what non-obvious inventions are and how to determine non-obviousness in specific cases. Paper References: Laura Pedraza-Fariña - Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Ryan Whalen - University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law A Network Theory of Patentability University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 87, No. 1, (2020) https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/network-theory-patentability Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

This week on the show, we discuss PayPal's $45 Billion Bid to buy Pinterest. Amazon is being accused of lying about its business practices to Congress while hurting small businesses. We have some good news as the average ransom payment stays steady at $140,000 in Q3, while we expose the cybercrime group FIN7 masquerading as a cybersecurity company called Bastion Secure to hire talent. We have the "Drug Cartels" in Mexico that are recruiting youth through contacts made on multiplayer online video games. Is Sony going to let viewers vote and pay to boot players from games?  "Welcome to TechTime with Nathan Mumm, the show that makes you go "Hummm" technology news of the week for October 23rd - 29th, 2021. Episode 71: Hour 1--- [Now on Today's Show]: Starts at 7:53--- [Top Stories in 5 Minutes]: Starts at 9:22PayPal in $45 Billion Bid to buy Pinterest - https://tinyurl.com/bzmv38v5Amazon accused of lying about its business practices to Congress - https://tinyurl.com/2mwuca5n Former President Donald Trump announced his very own social media platform - https://tinyurl.com/3mvk8evh MacBook Pro notch is getting a lot of hate - but Apple does not care too much - https://tinyurl.com/3u92uzdf   --- [Pick of the Day - Whiskey Tasting Review]: Starts at 21:56 Old Camp Peach Pecan Whiskey  | 70 Proof | $12.00--- [Gamer Time]: Starts at 24:40In 2020, Sony filed a patent for allowing livestream spectators and participants to remove players from a game. "Drug Cartels" recruiting youth through online video games--- [Protect Yourself Today]: Starts at 39:55The financially motivated FIN7 cybercrime gang has masqueraded as yet another fictitious cybersecurity company called "Bastion Secure" to recruit unwitting software engineers under the guise of penetration testing in a lead-up to a ransomware scheme.Callers Email about BreachRansomware: Average Ransom Payment Stays Steady at $140,000 in Q3 of 2021--- [Mike's Mesmerizing Moment brought to us by StoriCoffee®]: Starts at 48:50--- [Pick of the Day]: Starts at 54:41 Old Camp Peach Pecan Whiskey  | 70 Proof | $12.00Nathan: Thumbs Up | Mike: Thumbs UpEpisode 71: Hour 2 On the Second Hour, we have our Letters Segment, where we look at the latest Phishing attempts, emails scams, and fraud sent to the host. Then, we plan on having open phone lines on our Ask the Expert segment. Plus, we will talk about a great deal for the Jedi's in your family, and we explore why Facebook dominates the social media world and what happens to their competition? You will not want to miss “This Week in Technology History” Welcome to hour two of TechTime, with your Host Nathan Mumm and Co-Host Mike Gorday.--- [Now on Today's Show]: Starts at 1:03:10--- [Letters]: Starts at 1:06:23Mike and Nathan share this week's informative emails that I have received during the week. This includes scams, phishing emails, and all-out mistruths disguised as legitimate emails. --- [Ask the Expert]: Starts at 1:23:12We have open phone calls and answer questions on Malware, job searching online, and social media ratings for people.--- [Technology Insider]: Starts at 1:39:50What is Facebook's Metaverse--- [This Week in Technology]: Starts at 1:49:14Podcorn: Podcast influencer marketplace The leading podcast marketplace. Connecting unique voices to unique brands for native advertising.

Cos'è un'invenzione di biologia sintetica? La si può brevettare? In questa puntata Darwin vi descrive cosa sia la biologia sintetica insieme ad Amedeo Santosuosso, docente di diritto e tecnologie dell'informazione e comunicazione presso la Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS di Pavia e Direttore scientifico del Centro Interdipartimentale dell'Università di Pavia European Centre for Law, science and new Technologies. Inoltre esistono numerosi problemi di brevettabilità per i prodotti biologici sintetici, come ci spiega Ilaria De Lisa, PhD, avvocatessa a Monaco di Baviera e autrice del libro "The Patentability of Synthetic Biology Inventions" ed. Springer. Giulia Bignami è figlia di due astrofisici. Lei afferma di essere caduta nel calderone dell'astrofisica troppo presto, come Obelix nella pozione magica di Panoramix. Quando si hanno in casa degli asciugamani con sopra ricamati dei satelliti, allora bisogna fare delle scelte di carattere!L'autrice ci racconta molte storie divertenti di vita familiare astronomica partendo dal suo libro "La zattera astronomica, come sopravvivere a un papà scienziato" edito da Baldini e Castoldi. In collaborazione con Università IUSS Pavia

Bastian Best Patentability of AI and Simulations in Europe – G1/19 – Interview with Bastian Best Find out more about Bastian Best: https://bastianbest.de/ Bastian Best Youtube Channel The post Patentability of AI and Simulations in Europe – G1/19 – Interview with Bastian Best – Episode 120 – IP Fridays first appeared on IP Fridays ®.

Question: What is the issue of correlation as related to matters of invitro/in vivo? Answer: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or […] The post MPEP Q & A 218: What is the issue of correlation about as related to matters of invitro/in vivo? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Welcome to Linda Liu & Partners on air! I'm Jason LIU from the Department of Chemistry. Today my topic is about “Exceptions to patentability in the life science field in China”.

Question: What does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) discuss? Answer: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) sets forth exceptions to prior art established in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending […] The post MPEP Q & A 180: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) appeared first on Patent Education Series.

On July 3, 2019, in a 7-5 split, the Federal Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo regarding questions of 101 and patentability of medical diagnostic claims under the current Alice/Mayo test and the Court's own precedent. Eight of the twelve judges in the case authored their own opinions.Athena Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, Docket No. 2017-2508 (CAFC July 3, 2019) - http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2508.Order.7-3-2019.1.pdfU.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US7267820B2Full video of The State of Patent Eligibility in America: Part I - https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-i

Question: What are the three separate and distinct requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112? Answer: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph require that the specification include the following three separate and distinct requirements: A written description of the invention; The manner and process of making and using the invention (the enablement requirement); and The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision… The post MPEP Q & A 132: What are the Three Separate and Distinct Requirements of the First Paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When is a reference analogous art to the claimed invention? Answer: A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: The reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or The reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending… The post MPEP Q & A 119: When is a Reference Analogous Art to the Claimed Invention? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What does 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) provide? Answer: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor, and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is… The post MPEP Q & A 112: What Does 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) Provide? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Where may information material to patentability come from? Answer: Sources of information may include: co-workers trade shows communications from or with competitors potential infringers third parties Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2000 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Duty of Disclosure. The answer is from the 9th […] The post MPEP Q & A 74: Sources of Information Material to Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Where may information material to patentability come from? Answer: Sources of information may include: co-workers trade shows communications from or with competitors potential infringers third parties Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2000 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Duty of Disclosure. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 2001 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of… The post MPEP Q & A 74: Sources of Information Material to Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Today on the Launchpad we speak with Fri Rieder, Owner and Chief Maker at Free Dimension www.freedimension.net an expert in prototyping, 3D printing and the art of product development. He was born in Bern, Switzerland and moved here in the late 90’s to chase his dream of entrepreneurship. He has since made a name for himself and his company by being recognized as one of the top CAD and prototyping engineers in the area. His company Free Dimension has worked with clients around the globe. Inventors Launchpad’s approach has changed the face of product development forever. We specialize in working with clients whom, have an Invention idea, would like to Patent a Invention, or simply check on the Patentability. Maybe you need help to create and submit your Invention Idea or file a provisional patent. No matter what your needs are Inventors Launchpad’s Engineers, Product Developers and Designers can help. Our Manufacturing Team specializes in finding the best geographical location to produce your product, our factories will utilize the best materials and workmanship to insure the quality and performance in each component. The Inventors Launchpad – Roadmap to Success Series is presented by Inventors Launchpad in beautiful Tampa Bay, FL and hosted by Carmine Denisco. Carmine is an accomplished Author, Entrepreneur, Inventor and Co-founder/Managing Partner of Inventors Launchpad. Along with his business partner Rick Valderrama has changed the face of the invention industry and look forward to helping inventors from all over the world move their ideas forward. For more information please visit www.inventorslaunchpad.com

Question: What are the three separate and distinct requirements required of the specification by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph? Answer: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph require that the specification include the following three separate and distinct requirements: A written description of the invention; The manner and process of making and using the invention (the enablement requirement); and The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The… The post MPEP Q & A 70: Three Separate and Distinct Requirements of the Specification appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one of the underlying factual inquiries of obviousness. Answer: The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: Determining the scope and content of the prior art; and Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in… The post MPEP Q & A 65: Underlying Factual Inquiries of Obviousness appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the strongest rationale for combining references? Answer: The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not… The post MPEP Q & A 64: Strongest Rationale for Combining References appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Is an electronic publication considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates? Answer: Yes, an electronic publication is considered to be a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes… The post MPEP Q & A 58: Electronic Publications as Printed Publications appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When does an item of information raise a substantial new question of patentability or SNQ? Answer: An item of information raises an SNQ where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider the item of information important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable unless the same question was […] The post MPEP Q & A 46: Item of Information that Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When does an item of information raise a substantial new question of patentability or SNQ? Answer: An item of information raises an SNQ where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider the item of information important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable unless the same question was previously raised in another Office proceeding or has already been decided by a final holding of invalidity by a federal court. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2800 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Supplemental Examination. The answer is… The post MPEP Q & A 46: Item of Information that Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List 2 non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. Answer: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for” Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the… The post MPEP Q & A 37: Non-Structural Generic Placeholders Invoking 35 USC 112(f) appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Once Office personnel have established the Graham factual findings and concluded that the claimed invention would have been obvious, what must the applicant do? Answer: Once Office personnel have established the Graham factual findings and concluded that the claimed invention would have been obvious, the burden then shifts to the applicant to: show that the Office erred in these findings or provide other evidence to show that the claimed subject matter would have been nonobvious. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from… The post MPEP Q & A 31: Applicant Action After Invention is Found Obvious appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the major differences between AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act? Answer: The major differences between AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act are that: the AIA provision is keyed to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while the CREATE Act focuses on the date that the claimed invention was made; and the CREATE Act provisions only apply to obviousness rejections and not to anticipation rejections. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition,… The post MPEP Q & A 27: Difference Between AIA 35 USC 102(c) and the CREATE Act appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What should a substantial new question of patentability not be based upon? Answer: A substantial new question cannot be based upon: prior art expressly relied upon by the examiner during the prosecution prior art which was actually discussed Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2200 of the MPEP. […] The post MPEP Q & A 20: Details of Substantial New Question of Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What should a substantial new question of patentability not be based upon? Answer: A substantial new question cannot be based upon: prior art expressly relied upon by the examiner during the prosecution prior art which was actually discussed Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2200 of the MPEP. This chapter covers the Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions.… The post MPEP Q & A 20: Details of Substantial New Question of Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the two separate and distinct requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph? Answer: 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph contains two separate and distinct requirements: The first one is that the claim(s) set forth the subject matter applicants regard as the invention, and The second one is that the claim(s) particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending… The post MPEP Q & A 12: Two Separate and Distinct Requirements for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Philip Harrison of Venner Shipley discusses the “Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Europe” Download MP3

In this episode we have the chance to interview James Bikoff, who is frequently litgating trademarks of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and other large sports associations. The we also talk about a podcasting patent that was recently cancelled. And in the end, we tell you about decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of [...]

In this lecture, Jeffrey Schox provides a thorough review of how items can be patented and how they can be infringed upon. (November 16, 2012)

Scott McKeown, partner and co-director of the Post Grant Practice Group at Oblon Spivak, discusses post grant review. Learn more about Mr. McKeown at http://bit.ly/GGUcmu.

Patent litigation has taken off in recent decades. While many of the most visible patent lawsuits are initiated by major technology companies seeking to gain leverage over competitors, an increasing number are brought by patent trolls—firms that acquire patents with no intention of developing a technology with them, but instead use them to threaten practicing companies with litigation over alleged infringements. In this BU Law podcast, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, joins James E. Bessen, lecturer in law at Boston University School of Law and a faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, to talk about his paper, The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. Together they discuss the economic impact of the surge in lawsuits by patent trolls, the potential for legislation to solve this problem, and how the patent war is ultimately affecting innovation.

On this edition of IP Counsel, host Attorney Peter Lando, partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, welcomes Rob Follett, Director and Counsel, Intellectual Property, ZOLL Medical Corporation, to discuss the best practices for developing and managing a company’s IP program. Peter and Rob take a look at three major components of a successful IP program: education and overview of intellectual property, including agreements with IP implications; idea collection and the submission process; and IP management. Each of these practices serves to enlist employees and raise awareness about intellectual property in your company.

What constitutes subject matter that can be patented? It’s been studied by the courts for more than 100 years. On this edition of IP Counsel, we delve into the issue and take a close look at the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the recent Bilsky v. Kappos decision involving the patentability of business methods. IP Counsel host, Attorney Peter Lando, partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi , LLP calls on special guest, Gary Ganzi, VP Intellectual Property for Siemens Water Technologies Corp. (a subsidiary of Siemens, AG), an inventor and holder of more 25 patents and co-chair of the Patent Office Practice Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, to weigh in on this topic. Join us and find out what is and isn’t patent eligible and where this issue goes from here.

Primary Topics in Entrepreneurship: UA Experts

Utility, novelty, and un-obviousness requirements, and How to conduct a patentability search