About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) | Main | CVC Files Motion to Exclude Evidence, ToolGen Opposes, and CVC Replies in Interference No. 106,126 »

November 17, 2021


Certainly a tangent, but the emerging debate on "Artificial Intelligence as an inventor" may well have an even larger "muddying" effect in regards to JOINT inventorship.

After all, the DABUS case was focused on a singled inventive entity, and if taken at face value that the invention there CAN NOT be attributed to an actual human, but instead was the result of a machine (and this need NOT rise to the level of The Singularity, as is often misrepresented), then how many other inventions would fall to the "use" of AI wherein the human aspect of merely "reading a result, as if from a black box from another room" can call into question that a "joint inventor" situation exists?

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31