Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed content creation, producing everything from written articles and music to artwork and code. As AI-generated content becomes more common, questions about intellectual property rights and copyright protection have arisen. This article explores briefly the legal landscape surrounding AI-generated works, looking at current regulations, court cases, and ongoing debates.

Use of modeling, neural networks, and artificial intelligence today is exploding. Our office has helped many global clients in protecting their valuable rights to new inventions and products relating to this exciting technology. Some of the more frequent questions we get from inventors in this area is “…I know my idea is new and valuable but I am having trouble identifying what is patentable about my new invention to modeling and how I can protect my rights in it?” The good news is that inventions relating to modeling, neural networks, and AI are patentable and can be protected in various and often, multiple, ways. This article addresses some of the issues and answers to these questions, and discusses ways that an invention in this area can be protected.

When the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law in late 2011, the “buzz word” circulating the patent community was “first to file”. While the AIA has been in effect for more than 10 years, the urgency implied by “first to file” is still sometimes underappreciated by the uninitiated. A recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)[1], Sanho v. Kaijet[2], highlights how changes brought by the AIA impact real world inventions, and highlights the urgency behind the “first to file” standard.

One very important and critical aspect of the patent examination process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the Information Disclosure Statement, also known as IDS for short. We will discuss how integral an IDS is to the patent process further because it is the applicant’s duty to work in good faith with the USPTO to inform them of any prior art that applicant is aware of up to the issuance of a patent. Prior art is described as any evidence/references/information publicly known before the effective filing date of a patent application, whether it be an already existing product, patent application or publication of the product. The USPTO considers the references disclosed on the IDS when reviewing the filed patent application during examination.

We are pleased to announce the promotion of Adam Smith to Partner at Standley Law Group LLP!

The potential for misuse now exists in the new world of artificial intelligence (AI). AI has a vast array of potential benefits. Regardless of the type of end use, AI is only as good or useful as the information that is fed into the training system. Therein lies one risk that protected information may be improperly used to educate an AI system.

The FNG decision (In Re Float’N’Grill LLC, 2022-1438 (Fed. Cir. 2023)) serves as a reminder that it is risky not to file a continuation application when broader claims may be desired after the original patent claims are allowed. The FNG decision also highlights the importance of describing other embodiments of an invention as opposed to narrowly describing a single embodiment, and failing to indicate certain features are optional. A good patent attorney is trained to carefully draft patent applications with varying claim scope, so that an invention is not limited to only one way of practicing the invention.

In an appeal filed by the cosmetics company L'Oréal, the PTAB affirmed an examiner’s § 112(b) rejection against claims related to an anti-aging composition over the term “fondant texture”.