It’s unlikely the USPTO will grant a patent to a non-human inventor, and that’s likely for the best.
News and Commentary
In a guest post on PatentlyO, Saurabh Vishnubhakat writes about a recent lawsuit filed by Apple, Google, Cisco, and Intel against the USPTO for recent changes that would stay inter partes review pending district court litigation. This challenge is welcome news, and–if successful–would restore the IPR process to its rightful role.
In The Spokesman-Review, Jan Gee of the Washington Food Industry Association writes about how patent trolls are engaging in predatory behavior, in one instance by suing a supermarket for infringement.
The family-friendly VidAngel streaming service has been forced to pay $9.9 million in damages, down from the previous award of $64 million, after major rights holders like Disney and Warner Brothers sued for copyright infringement. VidAngel offered many movies and TV shows on its platform with content like nudity and profanity cut out.
At Research Enterprise, Gerald Barnett outlines what an effective patent policy would be for a university, with a focus less on exclusive licensing, claiming ownership, and generating revenue for potential speculative investors. Instead, universities should be relaxing the need to claim every potential patent with an ideal technology transfer program looking “like a mashup–part technology “library” and part “university press” and part “university extension (non-credit teaching)” and part “tech extension consulting”.