PatentNext Summary: In Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated patent claims relating to AI-driven cosmetic recommendations, finding them directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court held that while the specification referenced artificial intelligence, the claims themselves failed to
PatentNext Summary: In two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that merely applying artificial intelligence or digital techniques to a specific “field of use” does not satisfy patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., claims directed to AI-assisted television scheduling were deemed abstract for lacking inventive implementation. Similarly, in
PatentNext Summary: The Federal Circuit’s decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. found that applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment, without a specific technological improvement, is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court emphasized that claims must articulate concrete technological advancements rather than merely applying established methods to different domains.
In a recent PTABWatch article titled “PTAB Provides Some Clarity on Artificial intelligence (AI) Obviousness in IPR decision,” the PTAB’s approach to evaluating obviousness in AI-related patents is examined. The article discusses the case Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLC, where the PTAB invalidated all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Number 11,055,583, which pertained to
Agentic AI is transforming artificial intelligence by enabling systems to act independently, making decisions and solving problems autonomously across various industries. Its potential rapid development poses unique challenges for intellectual property protection, requiring innovative strategies to ensure these advancements are effectively safeguarded within the evolving IP landscape.
Introduction
Last year, we explored how Multimodal AI
PatentNext Summary: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) patent application filings continue to rise at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with a significant concentration in Tech Center 2100, which focuses on computer architecture and software, particularly AI and simulation technologies. GenAI inventions commonly face Section 103 (obviousness) and Section 101 (subject matter eligibility) rejections, with
PatentNext Takeaway: When deciding whether to patent AI-based inventions or maintain them as trade secrets, key considerations include the extent of public disclosure and the detectability of the AI model. Deploying an AI model in consumer-facing devices or making its output public often supports patenting to secure exclusivity. On the other hand, low detectability and
This article is co-authored by Phelan Simpkins, counsel for State Farm who oversees emerging technology licenses, among other key areas for the company. Phelan is speaking in his individual capacity. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the view and position of State Farm.
PatentNext Takeaway: This post discusses the issues of divided infringement
PatentNext Takeaway: This post highlights the FDA’s increasing regulatory efforts for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)-enabled medical devices (MLMDs), with a focus on managing device AI/ML updates through Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs). The FDA emphasizes five guiding principles for PCCPs to ensure safety, risk management, and transparency for MLMDs throughout their lifecycle.
PatentNext Takeaway: WIPO published a Patent Landscape Report on GenAI. The Patent Landscape Report discusses trends in GenAI, including trends in: GenAI scientific publications, GenAI patents, GenAI models, types of data used in GenAI, and GenAI application areas.