Whether or not the law recognizes a machine as the inventor-at-law, the facts are indispensable to determination of the true inventor-in-fact. In the case of Stephen Thaler’s attempt to obtain patent protection for a food container and light stick he says were independently invented by his AI machine, DABUS, the inventor-in-fact will be either Thaler or his machine. The procedural posture of Thaler v. Vidal caused the discourse to jump over the facts of how the food container and the light stick were invented by DABUS. These overlooked facts may reveal the true inventor, regardless of whether or not the type of inventor is recognized by the current law.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 12: Novartis Loses Challenge to IRA Drug Price Negotiation Program; Lutnick Wants a Share of University IP Licensing; and EUIPO Announces First Copyright Conference
- Government Taking a Cut of University Royalties Would Threaten Bayh-Dole’s ROI
- Conservatives Appeal to Lutnick’s Inventor Roots in Urging Him to Drop ‘Patent Tax’ Proposal
- PTAB Turbulence: A Good Time to be a Patent Owner
- Amici Have Their Say in SCOTUS Case on ISP Liability