A lot of people mistake crowdfunding for means of raising money online. However, it is a bit more than that. There are different types of crowdfunding businesses on the internet, and there’s a handful of successful businesses as well. However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t be successful in starting a crowdfunding business. Then again, it must be done right if you want to launch it successfully. In this article, we’ll discuss how to start a crowdfunding business, and we’ll also discuss how to do it properly so you can profit from it. Let’s get started! How to Start Crowdfunding […]

The post Starting a Crowdfunding Business Simplified appeared first on Crowdfunding software.

What has been the impact of the COVID-19 health crisis been on the innovation landscape? Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Senior Economist and co-editor of the GII 2021 at WIPO discusses the report’s key findings.

Did you grow up with “Monica’s Friends”? Founded over 60 years ago, Mauricio de Sousa Productions has become one of Brazil’s most successful comic book and animation publishers. What role has intellectual property played in this success?

Graphenel JSC, based in Ho Chi Minh City, is a technology company with a novel approach to graphene production. Jane Phung, the company’s international business development manager, discusses the role IP plays in supporting Graphenel’s ambition to become a leading supplier of graphene-based materials.

In 2021, the WIPO Nigeria Office launched the second WIPO National IP Essay Competition as part of its World Intellectual Property Day activities. Read the winning essay by Oyinkansola Komolafe entitled Intellectual property, SMEs and Economic Recovery in Nigeria.

A copyright lawsuit raises the question of the embodied value of textbooks.

The post Chegg vs. Pearson: Are back-of-chapter answers intellectual property? appeared first on e-Literate.

The reason that courseware has disappointed as a product category is that we failed to understand the product/market fit of the paper textbook.

The post Argos: Upcycling Course Design appeared first on e-Literate.

The orthopedic industry traditionally sees significant levels of intellectual property litigation activity, and this year has been no different. One source of this activity comes from Conformis who has continued to assert patents directed towards surgical planning and patient specific instruments and implants. In 2021, Conformis filed three new complaints, settled one case, and continued another litigation. These cases have involved various companies, including DePuy Synthes, Exactech, Bodycad, Wright Medical, and Medacta.

Decisions and settlements have also been reached in several additional lawsuits relating to diverse technologies, such as bone plates, knee implants, and pedicle screws. TriMed, Arthrex, Medacta, and Zimmer are some of the companies that have been parties to these lawsuits. Alternative forums, including the use of Inter Partes Review, have also continued to play significant roles for both patent holders and challengers.

Several attorneys from Knobbe Martens – including Andrew Douglas, Jessica Achtsam, Michael Christensen, Kregg Koch, Christy Lea and Sabing Lee – presented a webinar on August 26, 2021, to discuss notable decisions from recent orthopedic and spine intellectual property litigations. The webinar was prepared in anticipation of the 2021 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the 36th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Spine Specialists and included topics such as:

• an analysis of claim types asserted by Conformis against patient specific implant and instrument technologies and how these claims have been enforced against and challenged by many prominent orthopedic companies;
• how statements made by a patent holder can limit the scope of their claims in litigation;
• how small companies can leverage their patents to derive licensing revenue;
• trade secret issues that can arise at industry meetings;
• how prolific doctor inventors have built and enforced large patent portfolios;
• remedies for IP disputes outside the United States; and
• strategies for using patents defensively as part of a countersuit strategy.

The full webinar is available for viewing at this web link.

The post IP Litigation Remains Active in the Orthopedic and Spine Industries appeared first on Knobbe Medical.

Over 1,000 Australian innovation patent applications were filed in July – an all-time record, ahead of 768 applications in June and 692 in May.  Between 2010 and early 2020, there were typically between 100 and 200 innovation patent applications filed each month.  But with the system set to close to new applications from 26 August 2021, filings have surged over the past year, with over 600 applications every month since October 2020 (with the exception of February 2021, when ‘only’ 482 applications were filed).  China remains the most prevalent country of origin for these applications, accounting for nearly 45% of new innovation patent filings in July.  However applications received from India have grown significantly since June 2020, with Indian applicants filing a third of applications in July.  Applications by Australian applicants have increased modestly over the past couple of months, rising to 175 in July.  Applicants from other jurisdictions seem (so far) nonplussed by the imminent demise of the innovation patent system, with no apparent recent surge in filing numbers.

It is well-known that the motivation for Chinese applicants seeking Australian innovation patents – which are subject only to a formalities examination before being granted – is to obtain government incentive payments without the delay and expense associated with substantive examination.  While these subsidy schemes are supposed to be coming to an end, clearly there are still sufficient incentives available for Chinese entities to keep filing for as long as it remains possible to do so.  It is less clear why innovation patents have recently become so popular with Indian applicants, however I have noted that many of the applications appear to be filed in the names of academic or research institutes, and/or individuals or teams including people with academic titles.  I therefore suspect that being an inventor or applicant on a granted patent may have benefits for people pursuing academic or research careers in India.

In any event, it is clear that the vast majority of innovation patent applications are currently being filed by non-resident applicants for reasons that have nothing to do with any genuine desire to obtain or commercialise intellectual property rights in Australia, and few are filed by the Australia small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that the system was intended to benefit.  Surging demand for innovation patents in the lead-up to the system being closed to new applications is overwhelmingly being driven by Chinese and Indian applicants, with Australian residents showing relatively little interest in taking advantage of the final opportunity to file new innovation patent applications.

Of course, genuine users of the patent system – including Australian applicants – are continuing to file standard applications and international (PCT) applications, and these may be converted to innovation patents in the future, or form the basis for divisional innovation patent applications, where the filing date is earlier than 26 August 2021.  While these types of applications have been a minority in the past, they will necessarily become the only sources of ‘new’ innovation patents as the system is phased out over the coming eight years.

Read more »

As I recently (tentatively) predicted, on Friday 30 July 2021 Justice Beach in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment giving Australia the dubious honour of becoming the first country in the world to legally recognise a non-human as a valid inventor on a patent application: Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879.  I would suggest that the remarkable speed with which this unnecessarily lengthy (228 paragraphs) decision was rendered, after being heard on 2 July 2021, may reflect the judge’s enthusiasm for issuing such a ground-breaking ruling.  Unfortunately, I do not share that enthusiasm, and I am confident that there are many others who are equally uncomfortable with the outcome.  My hope is that this includes officials within IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and that the decision will be duly appealed to a Full Bench of the court.  It is, in my view, deeply regrettable that the Commissioner of Patents did not put on a stronger defence in the first instance because, even though an appeal was probably inevitable either way, the worldwide publicity that this decision is now generating is not necessarily beneficial for Australia.

The judge summarised his reasoning (at [10]) that:

…in my view an artificial intelligence system can be an inventor for the purposes of the Act. First, an inventor is an agent noun; an agent can be a person or thing that invents. Second, so to hold reflects the reality in terms of many otherwise patentable inventions where it cannot sensibly be said that a human is the inventor. Third, nothing in the Act dictates the contrary conclusion.

The patent system faces many challenges, but right now a need to grant more patents in a wider range of circumstances in not one of them.  We are in the grip of a global pandemic, and very serious questions are being asked about whether patents deliver a net benefit to the people of the world by incentivising the development of new vaccines and treatments, or whether they have the detrimental effect of denying affordable access to vital care and protection in poor and developing nations.  While I am firmly in the former camp, it only becomes harder to defend the patent system when opponents see the law expanding access to allow inventions generated by machines – potentially including those owned and controlled by giant corporations.

The standing and reputation of Australia and our patent laws are also at risk.  The country is already the target of criticism – rightly or wrongly – for declining to support calls for a waiver of IP provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).  The Federal Court’s decision in Thaler is receiving global attention, and not all of it is positive.  One tweet (in Spanish) compares Australia’s patent-friendly approach unfavourably with the infamous incident of an early innovation patent being granted for a ‘circular transportation facilitation device’, a.k.a. the wheel.

Just because patents are (or, at least, can be) good, it does not follow that more patents, generated in more ways, by more entities, must be better.  Australia should not think that we will necessarily come across as a socially and technologically progressive nation by ‘leading the way’ on allowing patents to be granted for inventions generated by non-humans.  On the contrary, we risk being left out on our own and looking like chumps.  The United States will not follow our lead – there are Constitutional, statutory and procedural barriers to permitting US patent applications naming non-human inventors.  The European Patent Office will not follow in the foreseeable future – it has already established its position via an academic study and discussions with member states of the European Patent Convention.  The UK has so far rejected any expansion of inventorship to non-humans.  And, contrary to recent reports (and the claims of the Artificial Inventor Project’s Ryan Abbott), the recent grant of a patent in South Africa naming DABUS as inventor indicates nothing about that country’s law or position on the issue.  As South African patent attorney Pieter Visagie has explained, the application effectively avoided any scrutiny of the legitimacy of the inventor by virtue of being filed via the international (PCT) system.

So what does Australia gain by being the first – and possibly only – country in the world to legally recognise non-human inventors?  Nothing, as far as I can see, other than a whole lot of unneeded publicity and global scrutiny of our patent laws.  If we are lucky, we will not receive many serious patent applications for inventions generated by machine inventors, and little practical harm will be done.  At worst, however, we could become the only country in the world to grant patents on such inventions, mostly filed by foreign applicants, creating exclusive rights that are enforceable only in Australia to the relative detriment of Australian innovators and consumers.

Read more »

In the part one of this article we discussed about the general understanding of AI divided as ANI and AGI, ANI’s adoption and influence in the copyright law, and complexities arising out of the adoption of ANI while generating copyrightable works. Further, let us understand the intricacies involved in the examination of ANI. What could happen if ANI generated works are granted copyright protection, and other complexities that could arise if ANI is left unsupervised.

On 2 July 2021, a hearing took place at the Federal Court of Australia in Melbourne, before Justice Jonathan Beach, in the matter of Stephen Thaler v Commissioner of Patents.  This case concerns the question of whether a patent may be granted for an invention that was devised by a machine, rather than by a human inventor.  Back in February, I reported on the refusal by the Australian Patent Office to accept as valid an Australian patent application naming an ‘artificial intelligence’ going by the name DABUS (‘Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’) as inventor.  And in March I reported that an application had been filed in the Federal Court for review of the Patent Office decision.

Regular readers will know my position on this issue – I do not consider it appropriate at this time (or, potentially, ever) to grant patents for inventions devised entirely by automated means, such that there is no human inventor.  I have written an article targeted to a more general audience, which has been published by InnovationAus, providing an overview of the Australian case, and broadly discussing my concerns.  Here I will be going into more detail of the arguments presented at the recent hearing, and why I think it would be very unfortunate if Justice Beach were to decide that this is a suitable case for judicial development of the law to embrace machine inventors, as he is being encouraged to do by Thaler.

I was able to attend the hearing virtually, since it was being held via web conference.  Thaler’s team, led by experienced and highly-regarded barrister David Shavin QC, appeared in person in the Melbourne courtroom with Justice Beach, while the Commissioner of Patents was represented by Hamish Bevan, appearing via video from Sydney (subject to restrictions, due to an ongoing COVID outbreak).  Although I disagree with the proposition, I thought that Mr Shavin presented a persuasive argument that the relevant provisions of the Australian Patents Act 1990 can, and should, be interpreted to encompass non-human inventors, and that Mr Bevan perhaps did not do enough to counter this argument.  I formed the impression that Justice Beach just might be minded to ‘develop’ the Australian law to permit patent applications having no human inventor, in part because he was not presented with any particularly good reasons not to do so.

Read more »