You are counsel for a company which just developed an innovative process incorporating a generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) component. For example, Tech Company may have designed AI-powered personalized health assistant designed to provide real-time health monitoring and personalized health recommendations. The technology leverages Gen AI-driven interfaces to allow users in conversational form to use
In response to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the evolving landscape of patent law, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a comprehensive guidance update on patent subject matter eligibility, particularly focusing on AI inventions. This update, aligned with Executive Order 14110 on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development
On April 11, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (April Guidance). The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued Feb. 13, 2024, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated
Most of us know that DATA, the beloved android from Star Trek, The Next Generation, is an artificial intelligence (AI) life form from the distant future with a high capacity to problem solve and innovate. But, if DATA were present today and invented a new technology, could he be an inventor on a patent for his invention?
The question of whether AI can legally be an inventor on a patent was recently addressed by the European Patent Office (EPO) and The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The same question is still being evaluated by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) along with solicitation for comments to the patent community.
Continue Reading Could Star Trek’s DATA Be a Patent Inventor?
On January 4, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released new Patent Examiner Guidance (Guidance) for subject matter eligibility. The updated guidance could benefit any technology patent applicant who has a computer-related invention — from smartphones to artificial intelligence — and who has previously had difficulty acquiring patents under the USPTOʼs procedures
Nov. 21 is National Entrepreneur Day! In honor of this day that celebrates and promotes entrepreneurship and innovation, here are some recent Insights from our inventive team:
Each year, the Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) Invented Here! award celebrates local and regional New England innovation communities by honoring select innovators, their inventions, and the stories behind them. Greenberg Traurig’s Boston Intellectual Property (IP) Group is proud to have four of its clients – GRIT, LuxCath LLC, The George Washington University, and IlluminOss
Over the last few months I have had the chance to speak to entrepreneurs from Brazil, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Israel, Norway, Singapore and Ukraine seeking to operate and solicit investment here in the U.S. As an attorney, I’m expected to focus on best legal practices. They’re indeed important, but perhaps not worth quite so much energy if the company isn’t on a course to succeed as a business.
Among my first questions, I’m curious to know what a company has, why it’s great, who’s willing to pay, and how much. Then, I explore other challenges facing the business.
For start-up companies that still want to talk, here’s my simplified rundown of business and legal items (for information purposes only, not legal advice):Continue Reading U.S. Market Entry Top 10
Nearly every patent practitioner has been impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). Alice applied the two-part eligibility test set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2014), i.e., is the claim directed to ineligible subject matter and,
The Federal Circuit recently issued two opinions directly impacting software patent practitioners. Grounded in 35 U.S.C. §112(f) (or pre–American Invents Act §112, para. 6), the cases deal with claims containing “functional language,” and hold that there must be detailed support in the patent’s specification that describes the “means” by which a claimed function is carried