AI News, USPTO awards Improved Patent Search with Artificial Intelligence ... artificial intelligence
15/885,687 related to certain systems and methods of continuous active machine learning with document review quality monitoring, used in Sentio’s lead products SentioAI and Sentio Maestro.
"We are pleased that the USPTO has allowed this U.S. patent relating to production systems and methods for CAL with document review quality monitoring at this significant period in its development.
About Sentio Software Established in 2015, Sentio Software is a premier technology firm specializing in document classification and review solutions using advanced machine learning and predictive analytics.
Sentio's technology team has extensive experience in information retrieval, machine learning, artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and data mining for Big Data.
Fraudulent Trademarks: How They Undermine the Trademark System and Harm American Consumers and Businesses
SAS limiting Cuozzo: In SAS (2018), Justice Gorsuch explained the holding in Cuozzo (2018) as follows: Cuozzo concluded that § 314(d) precludes judicial review only of the Director’s “initial determination” under § 314(a) that “there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the claims are unpatentable on the grounds asserted.
To be clear, if the no-appeal statute’s sole function is to block appeal of the reasonable-likelihood decision, then the decision is foreclosed in favor of the patentee (allowing appeal of the time-bar question). However, as I suggested in a prior essay, I believe that Justice Gorsuch SAS opinion overstated Cuozzo’s holding.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What do you do with the sentence in this Court’s SAS decision that says 314(d) precludes judicial review only of the Board’s initial determination under 314(a) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable?
and (2) it might also be an incorrect interpretation of the statute. For me, this raises the interesting esoteric question about precedent and primary sources. What is the precedential and stare decisis role of the Supreme Court’s (mis)description of its prior precedent. Is the (mis)description now the leading precedent, or is it merely a secondary source helpful in interpreting the original decision.
MR. GEYSER: (Arguing for the patentee) We’re simply reading 314(d) to say exactly what this Court in SAS said it meant, which is it is limited to only the initial patentability threshold in 314(a).
The substantive issue on appeal in Thryv was the PTO’s interpretation of the time bar in § 315(b). Although a lawsuit had been filed and served, the PTAB found that the time-bar was not triggered because that lawsuit had been dismissed without prejudice. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB had misinterpreted the statute —
Justice Gorsuch pushed that question in an extreme example, and Charnes held his ground on no appeal: JUSTICE GORSUCH: Let’s just hypothesize that someone has tried to undo this patent four times or maybe even more in a court of law, failed for various reasons every single time, and then comes to the director of patents, who has a political mission, perhaps, to kill patents, let’s just say.
Mr. Ellis from the SG’s office added his two-cents with an argument along the lines of “you shouldn’t care about privacy if you have nothing to hide.” In this case, his argument was that we shouldn’t worry since “you’re going to get review, judicial review of the patentability”
is the time-bar a big deal. In Cuozzo and in oral arguments here, the justices appeared reluctant to bar appeals of important issues such as due process violations and statutes of limitations.
The basic idea here is that even if the petition is time-barred, patentability could be raised in an ex parte reexamination or in a district court declaratory judgment challenge, or by a separate petitioner who was not time-barred: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: [speaking about ex parte reexam] Well, it’s different, I’ll give you that, but, I mean, it’s focused on the same ultimate question.
You get a long, iterative process with a talented patent examiner who can say this is what I think is wrong, and then you have lots of opportunities to show them exactly why that
The petitioners here do a nice job of overcoming that argument and so I don’t see it as the basis for the decision, although the court may throw it in as an ancillary matter.
And, the question is whether congress did enough in the statute to overcome that presumption in this case. Patentee’s counsel (who is aware of many cases) ended his arguments with an appeal to precedent and history: MR. GEYSER:I would submit that I’m not aware of any case that this Court has ever decided that would find Article III review cut off entirely based on language as indirect as this.
- On 18. juni 2021
AI in the Administrative State | Use of AI in IP-Related Search and Classification
Moderator: Arti Rai, Duke Law School, The Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law Liat Belinson, AI Patents Scott Beliveau, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ...
Impeachment & Artificial Intelligence used as a Civil Rights Violation Google Patents September 25
Mobile Digital Post with Science Technology Engineering Education Art Math! 1. Cyber solutions, digital intelligence, anti-intelligence, counter-intelligence for ...
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) As the Under Secretary of ...
Prior Art Archive
The Prior Art Archive is a new, open access system that allows anyone to upload their prior work and make it easily searchable by patent examiners.
Oculogx is a heads-up display technology for retailers
This augmented reality software provides heads-up display technology for retailers to increase efficiency and accuracy for order fulfillment helping online ...
Welcome to Invention-Con 2019
USPTO leadership welcome guests and participants to Invention-Con 2019 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. Speakers: NaThanya Ferguson ...
Hantel Tech Seminar Series: FTO, Competitive Intelligence, and Advancing Your Position
Abstract: In the medical device industry, crowded fields of innovators often find themselves pursuing similar paths for improving existing technologies. Thus ...
Innovation, Justice and Globalization Panel: The puzzles of overlapping and hybrid IP rights
On September 26 and 27, Harvard Law School hosted the “Innovation, Justice and Globalization” conference. The panel "The puzzles of overlapping and hybrid ...
Lecture 08: Introduction to patent search
Speaker Series: Martine Rothblatt
On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 USPTO Andrei Iancu and the creator of SiriusXM Satellite Radio, former CEO of GeoStar, and the founder and chairwoman ...