Smartstaff, the blue-collar employee-management platform, has received seed funding of $4.3 million from Blume Ventures, Nexus Venture Partners, Arkam Ventures, Gemba Capital...
Une technologie haute température vient élargir le portefeuille de traitement thermique de YES
FREMONT, Californie, 8 octobre 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- YES (Yield Engineering Systems, Inc.), l'un...
Dissatisfaction from one’s work is a common phenomenon which professionals from almost all fields experience sometime in their career. However, a particularly...
As the global cannabis industry expands, different markets are emerging around the world as the biggest contenders in the overall global market. When...
It should be said at the outset that the US law is very different to that of Australia, and it is therefore unlikely that anything in Judge Brinkema’s legal reasoning will be influential upon the Full Court. It has also become apparent through the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions that while the UK law shares some similarities with the corresponding provisions of the Australian Patents Act 1990, there are also some significant differences. Even so, there are aspects of the reasoning of Lord Justice Arnold in the Court of Appeal that the Australian appeals court may consider persuasive, and that could therefore influence the outcome here.
There are two key questions likely to be addressed in the appeal, both of which also arose in the UK, although only the first received substantive attention in the US. These are:
Can DABUS, as an ‘AI’ machine and not a human being, validly be named as an inventor on a patent application?
Can Dr Thaler, not being (at his own insistence) the inventor, establish a proper legal basis for entitlement to the grant of patents on inventions said to be generated by DABUS?