Bacon is delightful. And the similarly savory subject of who must be named inventor on a bacon patent was the issue in the recent case of HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023). HIP claimed that one of its employees materially contributed to the invention of Hormel’s patent on methods for precooking bacon. The question of what makes one an “inventor” was central to whether HIP’s employee should be added to the patent. More broadly, questions about inventorship and authorship have become central to recent commentary and speculation about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on intellectual property law. While AI did not factor into HIP v. Hormel, the decision provides a useful reminder about the role of the common law in developing answers to these momentous questions.
Recent Posts
- Recentive Rehearing Petition Challenges CAFC’s Broad Section 101 Exclusion of Machine Learning Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process
- Mediocre Results so Far for Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot
- European Patent Organization: Responses from ChatGPT Do Not Represent the “Understanding of a Skilled Person”