JACKSONVILLE, Fla. and SON, Netherlands, Oct. 5, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Revalize, the worldwide leader in sector-specific revenue operations software for manufacturers, their distributors and...
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- AEP Energy Partners (AEPEP), an American Electric Power (Nasdaq: AEP) company, seeks proposals for off-take from new...
The Space Force Intelligence Activity was stood up as an interim organization until the National Space Intelligence Center is established WASHINGTON — The...
The issues in the UK case are somewhat different, and more nuanced, than in the US. While all three judges on the Court of Appeal agreed that an ‘inventor’ under the UK law must be a human being, the fact that DABUS is a machine was not immediately determinative of the outcome. An inventor is not required to play any active role in the filing, prosecution, or grant of a patent in the UK, so arguably there remains a question as to whether an application can be permitted to proceed even if a legally valid inventor has not been – or cannot be – named. In the event, the answer to this question turned on whether or not the applicant (i.e. Dr Thaler) could satisfy statutory requirements to name the inventor, and to indicate how he is entitled to be granted patents on inventions that he did not claim to have devised himself.
Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Birss disagreed on the outcome, with the tie being broken by Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, agreeing with Arnold LJ that the DABUS applications should be deemed withdrawn.
Arnold LJ is the preeminent patent law specialist on the Court of Appeal. He was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 2019, after being appointed to the High Court in 2008, and as Judge in Charge of the Patents Court in April 2013. In March 2016 he was appointed as an External Member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Impressive as this is, however, Birss LJ is no lightweight. In 2010 he was appointed as a Specialist Circuit Judge sitting in what was then the Patents County Court. In 2013 he was appointed to the High Court, and in 2019 he filled the place formerly held by Arnold LJ as Judge in Charge of the Patents Court, before being elevated to the Court of Appeal in January 2021.
So this is a case in which the dissenting judgment must be taken seriously, especially with the possibility still open of an appeal to the Supreme Court. But for now, at least, the balance of the law remains against DABUS in the UK.
WASHINGTON — Satellite fleet operator Eutelsat has rejected an unsolicited $3.2 billion takeover offer from telecom magnate Patrick Drahi.
On Sept. 29, Eutelsat confirmed...
Proposed terminal (Vineyard Wind Partners) This partnership reinforces Crowley’s position as a total lifecycle service provider in the offshore wind sector....