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, May 9: USPTO Responds to GAO Report; Stewart Welcomes National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductees; CAFC Defines ‘Ground’ for IPR Estoppel Statute
- PTAB Designates as Informative Stewart Decision on Discretion to Institute in Context of Parallel District Court Litigation
- Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now