Matthew Allen

🔎 Quick highlights from the draft of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) ➡ Covered data is now defined as "information that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable, alone or in combination with other information, to an individual or a device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to 1 or more individuals." ➡ APRA covers data that can be derived or inferred. Currently, only California and Oregon address this. ➡ APRA uses "Individuals" instead of "Consumers" (which most state privacy laws use Consumers). The devil is in the definition 👿 ➡ APRA's applicability extends beyond the business-to-consumer context and includes nonprofit organizations. ➡ Exemptions are provided for government entities and their service providers, small businesses with less than USD40 million in rolling three-year average gross revenue that handle the data of fewer than 200,000 individuals or do not broker data, and publicly available information. ➡ Employee information exempt to the extent it is provided for publicly available "business contact information" that is made available on a website or online service to all members of the public, including the name, position or title, business telephone number, business email address, or address of the employee. #privacy #APRA #dataprotection #individuals #employees #organizations #smallbusinesses #governmententities #publicinformation

6

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to revisit the scope of patent eligibility under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, rejecting Plotagraph Inc.’s petition. The Court's decision marks another instance where Alice's boundaries remain unclarified, leaving patent holders navigating an uncertain landscape. With Congress addressing legislative reforms, the future of patent eligibility in the digital age is a key debate. The case involving Plotagraph and Lightricks Ltd. underscores the need for software and digital tech innovators to meet the heightened standards of inventiveness required under Alice. #PatentLaw #SupremeCourt #IntellectualProperty #AlicePrecedent #Innovation #SCOTUS #USPatentLaw

1

The latest update from the USPTO on inventorship for AI-assisted inventions provides crucial guidance that clarifies subject matter eligibility, especially under the Alice/Mayo test. With expanded examples and streamlined processes, this update is essential reading for anyone navigating patent law—from inventors and practitioners to examiners. Read more in this article authored by Arjun P. and Gary Sorden for Bloomberg Law. https://lnkd.in/epd5vdfa #PatentLaw #Innovation #USPTOUpdate #ColeSchotz #IPLaw

22

Mark your calendars for Jan. 14, 2025, 10:30AM EDT. Judge Sydney Stein is allowing the audio webcasting of the oral argument in New York Times v. Microsoft, OpenAI for the motions to dismiss. It includes the DMCA claims, but not the direct infringement claims (beyond what is asserted as time-barred). You can see the scope of what defendants seek to dismiss in the link below. You need Microsoft Teams (no irony intended)! For the MS Teams call-in number, visit here: https://lnkd.in/g2PNn_m4

76

12 Comments

Many software inventions are about user interaction flows. It's good patent drafting practice to focus on method claims for these. They typically have less "clutter" than apparatus claims, and make it easy for the examiner to understand the gist of the invention. Are you on team "method claim" or team "apparatus claim"? #patentingAI #softwarepatent #UX #UI #AI #IP

20

4 Comments

I greatly agree to Clint Mehall's great article here, but since he asked here’s a slightly opposing view to spark the discussion: An LLM could easily be finetuned on all published applications of the client, selected competitors, or even the entire technical field. Who will come up with a better first draft of the claims, such a vastly literate LLM or an associate who has seen maybe a handful of relevant applications? Another use case is using the LLM as a brainstorming buddy to let it suggest workarounds for a given claim draft. Also this will improve quality, right? That said, my recommendation is to use AI to make suggestions, not decide anything obviously. Thinking that the entire process from the IDF to the full patent application can be automated with a 1-click AI, as some seem to propose, is a big mistake in my opinion. It should always be the human who decides on the claims in the end, not the AI. The reason is that deciding on the claims is a highly strategical task that has no analytically optimal solution. Yet, many parts of the patent drafting process can be greatly streamlined with AI, even with off-the-shelf LLMs. Coincidentally, I’m running a whole online seminar on this topic on Tuesday. Ticket sale ends tonight though: https://lnkd.in/djeMZKUc 

19

9 Comments

Earlier today, the California Privacy Protection Agency Board voted to advance the new draft CCPA regulations to formal rulemaking. We thought it might be helpful to provide a series of short high-level summary webinars on the new rulemaking topics, starting with automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT). If you missed the Board meeting, the draft ADMT rules were a source of many comments and concerns, including their impact on artificial intelligence. There can be no doubt that the ADMT regulations will generate many proposed revisions. https://lnkd.in/guW-BJPc

134

2 Comments

🚨 Patent rendered unenforceable due to USPTO typo! 😱 Court dismisses infringement claims over a simple '267' vs '268' error in terminal disclaimer. Proofreading has never been more crucial in patent law. #PatentLaw #IPLitigation

1

Offline LLMs can work great for patent drafting, but they also have their limitations compared to ChatGPT. This video gives a quick comparison. Are you on team "offline LLM" or team "ChatGPT" for your patent drafting work? 🙋 The video is a snippet from the Powerclaim Seminar where we address exactly the question of model selection and many more. The next seminar is on April 30th, so get your ticket quickly: https://lnkd.in/djeMZKUc

16

1 Comment

Check out the IP blog, "Key Takeaways from Claim Examples in the 2024 AI Patent Eligibility Guidance: A 3-Part Series," by Melissa Patterson, Hector Agdeppa, and Mark Catanese. They cover examples provided by the 2024 AI SME Update in-depth and provide key takeaways. Read more: https://bit.ly/4ePz14A #patents #artificialintelligence

4

In Feb. 2024, the USPTO announced a $70 Million contract to Accenture Federal Services for an AI patent search tool. https://lnkd.in/g5SqSswe https://lnkd.in/g9E7BvD7 Today a patent examiner suggests that USPTO management stop wasting money on AI search and offers these suggestions for using AI to increase patent examination efficiencies. https://lnkd.in/g6-5z6ry #AI, #IP, #IT, #USPTO, #LLM, #INVENTOR, #patent, #innovation

21

9 Comments

The law for design patent obviousness may change in the upcoming months when a decision is issued from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals from February 2024 en banc rehearing of LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC. Although the law has not yet changed, the application of the current law has recently changed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). With the use of AI-assisted searching, design patent examiners appear to be issuing more obviousness rejections under the current law. While we await any change to the law, practitioners should be prepared to address AI-assisted design patent rejections and should develop strategies for maintaining a design patent portfolio while the law and procedure evolve. Learn more about this trending IP topic from Brooks Kushman P.C. attorney Michael Turner. Read more: https://lnkd.in/epms2vAJ #designpatents #ai #intellectualproperty

8

Today, the USPTO issued new subject matter eligibility guidance for AI inventions. The most helpful parts of the guidance are the examples, which include claims that the USPTO deems subject matter eligible and ineligible. https://lnkd.in/eB6q2QNn Even though the examples and the USPTO's explanation do not have the effect of law, they are useful in guiding patent practitioners as to the types of claims to present to the USPTO.

10

專利授權作業最重要的議題是取得Claim Chart與Sales Figures，傳統作業流程需要配置許多人力（橘色框內容），導入軟體與AI工具（白色框內容），能大量加速取得Claim Chart與Sales Figures，重新定義專利資產價值。 The most critical issues in patent licensing operations are obtaining Claim Charts and Sales Figures. The traditional workflow requires allocating significant human resources (content in orange boxes). Introducing software and AI tools (content in white boxes) can greatly accelerate the acquisition of Claim Charts and Sales Figures, redefining the value of patent assets.

I’m interested in how AI is impacting law practice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance on how to determine inventorship when AI was involved in creating the invention. In 2022, in Thaler v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit held that “only a natural person can be an inventor, so AI cannot be.”  So, how can something developed by AI be patented? ·      The guidance reaffirms the Federal Circuit decision: Named inventors must be “natural persons.” A non-human, such an AI system, cannot be listed as inventor, even if it was “instrumental” in creating the invention. ·      A person named as inventor must make a “significant contribution” to any AI-assisted invention. ·      This is determined by existing inventorship law: The inventor must contribute in some significant way to the invention’s conception or reduction to practice. ·      USPTO gives an example: A person who merely 1) recognizes the need for a new design to solve a specific problem, 2) prompts an AI system to create a design, and 3) reviews the design outputted by the AI system, has not made a significant contribution. ·      On the other hand, a significant contribution “could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system.” ·      These distinctions could be difficult to make in practice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in real world examples as AI develops and its use in creating inventions increases. ·      The USPTO guidance tells us that inventors using AI should be prepared to demonstrate, with supporting documentation, the specific things they did to contribute to the invention and how AI was used to assist. https://lnkd.in/g6gx_eTV #artificialintelligence #technology #AI

6