How J.E.M. and Chakrabarty Make the Case for DABUS – Kirk Hartung wrote an article for IPWatchDog about J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Diamond v. Chakrabarty, discussing their impact on patent protection with resect to inventions created using artificial intelligence.
Teva to Defend Ruling Allowing Narcan Generic at Federal Circuit – Perry Cooper posted an article on BloombergLaw reporting that a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit will consider an appeal in Adapt Pharma Operations v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. and if the decision is upheld, “[Narcan] generics can come to market 15 years sooner.”
Apple Asks SCOTUS to Hear Inter Partes Review Appeal – In an article on LawStreetMedia, Christina Tabacco writes about a case involving Apple and Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, and Unwired Planet International Limited.
How J.E.M. and Chakrabarty Make the Case for DABUS
IPWatchDog posted an article by Kirk Hartung discussing how the “rationale of the Supreme Court in J.E.M. and Chakrabarty supports patent protection for inventions by non-humans, i.e., artificial intelligence inventors.” Hartung argues that, since “the Supreme Court has interpreted the patent laws broadly to encompass new and unforeseen inventions, as in J.E.M., the same should be true for new and unforeseen inventors.” Additionally, Hartung states that, “[i]n order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, the patent law should not preclude protection for inventions by smart computers, even without human conception.”
Teva to Defend Ruling Allowing Narcan Generic at Federal Circuit
Perry Cooper posted an article on BloombergLaw reporting that a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit will consider an appeal in Adapt Pharma Operations v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., where “Adapt argues the [U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey] misapplied rules the Federal Circuit has laid out.” Perry explains that this case centers around a “nasal spray with the active ingredient naloxone that restores breathing to people experiencing an opioid overdose.” Cooper notes that the “trial court invalidated the patents as obvious, finding a skilled artisan would combine aspects of existing treatments to reach the patented solution.” Lastly, Perry discusses how an affirmation of this decision by the Federal Circuit could mean that “generics can come to market 15 years sooner.”
Apple Asks SCOTUS to Hear Inter Partes Review Appeal
In an article posted to LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tabacco reported how Apple Inc. is requesting the Supreme Court to “consider whether a rule promulgated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) directing it to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) in certain instances is lawful.” According to Tabacco, Apple also contends that “the Supreme Court should address whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over an IPR denial appeal and whether it may confer mandamus relief upon the aggrieved petitioner.” Tobacco notes Apple’s claim that, “if not altered, the Federal Circuit’s view of the matter will permit the PTAB to impermissibly restrict the availability of IPR.”