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
- CAFC Gives Centripetal Another Shot at PTAB in Case Tied to APJ’s Alleged Bias
- Undermining Innovation: The Consequences of Closing the Rocky Mountain Regional USPTO Office
- Does the 2025 Version of PERA Indirectly Sanction Judicially Created, Non-Statutory ODP?
- Squires Takes Over All IPR Institution Decisions in Memo to PTAB Judges
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 17: CAFC Finds Prosecution Disclaimer in Examiner Acceptance of Patentee’s Scope; Japan Urges Opt-In Copyright Model for Sora 2; and Seventh Circuit Clarifies Evidence Required for Sound Recording Copyright Claims