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
- Moore Tells Appellate Court that Newman’s Challenge to Suspension is Doomed
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, January 17: Teva Files IRA Challenge Amid Second Round of Medicare Negotiations; Ninth Circuit Says Kinetic Sculptures Can Be Sufficiently ‘Fixed’ for Copyright; USPTO Publishes Inventorship FAQs for AI-Assisted Inventions
- USPTO Fee Report: Discounts Don’t Cut It for Incentivizing New Patent Participants
- Federal Circuit Splits on Whether Toddler Tub May Infringe
- CAFC Rules Patent Applications are Considered Pre-AIA Prior Art By Filing Date, Not Publication Date