Patent systems around the globe offer a quid pro quo that exchanges limited monopolies for disclosures of inventions. Most patent filings list: (1) the inventor(s); and (2) the applicant. The applicant may be an assignee (e.g., company, university, organization, etc.) with rights to seek patent protection on innovations that were identified during employment and that were within a scope of employment. Frequently, the assignee is a current or former employer of the inventor(s). In some jurisdictions (e.g., in the United States), the inventor(s) hold the rights to prosecute the patent application and assert any resulting patent unless and until the inventor(s) assign those rights to another entity (which is frequently done in employment and work?for?hire contracts). In some jurisdictions (e.g., the European Union), it is presumed that the party that applied for a patent holds the rights to the patent application. Thus, it is well-established that non-human entities may be the applicant, assignee, and/or owner of a patent. However, it is not well-established that a non-human entity may be an inventor on a patent applicant. Multiple patent offices (e.g., USPTO, UKIPO, and WIPO) have been considering what the standard in this respect should be.
Recent Posts
- The AI Revolution: From Drilling to Algorithms, Inventing an Energy Future / IPWatchdog Unleashed
- CAFC Affirms Obviousness of Vehicle ID Claims, Finds Substitute Claims Ineligible Under Section 101
- U.S. Patent Litigation Trends in 2025: Patterns Behind the Numbers
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 26: Trump Announces 100% Tariff on Patented Pharmaceuticals; Judge Alsup Approves $1.5 Billion Anthropic AI Settlement; and DOJ Weaponization Group Reportedly Investigating Secret Patent Reviews
- CAFC Vacates TTAB Decision Over Inconsistent Application of DuPont Factors
