― Friday, 12th June 2020 Availing Patent Benefits – A ‘Status’ Check!
Every patent office provides certain benefits to Patent Applicants if they meet certain criteria (with respect to entity size, gross income and others). These benefits may be patent fee discounts or speedy examination processes.
This article touches upon the benefits extended by IPO, USPTO and EPO to entities based on their status.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 Not an Equal world for AI - No Inventorship for them!
With Artificial intelligence (AI) replacing humans in myriad sectors and operational aspects, it is not surprising that AI is able to concoct its own inventions. AI-generated inventions are (and may become) the norm, however, awarding inventorship to AI under the current patent system is far-fetched. So, is it justifiable denying patent rights to the actual inventor for inventions created by AI or does the patent system merely operate on the fact that AI is a machinewith no capability to exercise legal rights even if given any, and therefore unfit to hold inventorship for its creations.
― Wednesday, 27th May 2020 First Filing in India: A Requirement or a Choice?
Indian resident inventors may decide to file patent applications in multiple countries including India or entirely disregard India and go international! This may be due to weak market strength/poor demand for the product/invention in the country.
As per Indian Patents Act, it is mandatory to obtain an Foreign Filing License (FFL) if an Indian resident inventor decides to first file in a foreign country bypassing Indian Patent Office(IPO) . As per the rules, within 21 days of requesting for an FFL, the IPO, usually, either issues the FFL certificate or rejects the FFL request.
Another option is to first file in India and then wait for a cooling-off period (six weeks!) before attempting to file in a foreign country. In this case, an FFL is not required.
― Friday, 22nd May 2020 The Missing Link - IT Act and IPR Laws
Cyber laws are defined under the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000 encompassing legal and regulatory aspects of the internet and the world wide web. However, certain entities/intermediaries such as e-commerce websites, search engines, and data aggregators sometimes come under scrutiny for violation of IPR laws when seen under the light of IT Act. Hence, protection to intermediaries from liability, arising out of content posted by users, needs be addressed by creating nexus between IT Act and IPR laws.
― Wednesday, 20th May 2020 Keeping an Eye on India - USA’s IP Priority Watch List
India has been grappling with big IP giants such as the US to establish its stance on the IP front. Owing to a fallible IP regime, India has yet again come under the US’s Priority Watch List and is required to meet certain expectations of the US in terms of trade and other IPR related policies. However, the question still remains whether India, being a sovereign nation, should let itself be subdued by the US or have its own say in IP matters concerning the nation.
― Friday, 7th August 2020 Social Media Platform, MeSpoke Secures Official Patent
MeSpoke, an emerging social media platform poised to disrupt the retail advertisement industry, today announces that it has received an official patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office that protects the core technology for its revolutionary platform.
― Friday, 7th August 2020 PTAB Decides Against Moderna in Challenge to Arbutus Vaccine Patent
“While Petitioner derives an overlapping phospholipid range by making certain assumptions about the other lipid components of the particle, nothing in Dupont, or any other Federal Circuit decision we are aware of, suggests that a presumption of obviousness applies under the circumstances presented here.” – PTAB Final Written Decision
― Friday, 7th August 2020 Vibrations at the Federal Circuit: American Axle and the “New” “Nothing More” Test of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC have not clarified the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see a previous analysis of § 101’s unpredictability here). In this case, significant differences among Federal Circuit judges turned on whether a patent claim that invokes a natural law, and nothing else, to accomplish a desired result is patent eligible under Section 101. Despite strong dissents regarding this “nothing more” test, the original and modified panel opinions and the 6-6 order denying rehearing en banc confirm that such a claim is not eligible.