Patent Drafting for Machine Learning: Structural Claim Limitations, Avoiding Sections 101 or 112 Rejections, Drafting for EPO

Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Thursday, August 1, 2019

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will guide patent practitioners in overcoming the challenges when seeking patent protection for machine learning inventions. The panel will also discuss what can be done to anticipate and minimize the risks of Sect. 101 or 112 rejections as well as drafting with an eye towards the European Patent Office (EPO).

Description

Machine learning is increasingly important and is at work in many things used today, from internet searches to navigating traffic. Inventions in the field of machine learning pose challenges for patent practitioners seeking patent protection. However, what is patent eligible in the context of software inventions is not always clear.

Machine learning inventions should be eligible for protection, at least in the United States, but for patent-eligibility purposes, such designs must be described and claimed correctly and given the current state of the law. Counsel may also face challenges when seeking to comply with the enablement requirement under Sect. 112. Structural claim limitations can be used to strengthen patents for machine learning inventions and will benefit applicants by producing valid and enforceable patents.

Counsel should also understand the EPO’s approach to assessing the patentability of machine learning inventions. Counsel needs to be well versed in both the U.S. and EU approach to make the most of the patent protection available.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the challenges under Sections 101 and 112 and what patent counsel can do to overcome those challenges. The panel will also provide an overview of the technology involved with machine learning and the legal issues concerning inventorship.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Challenges in drafting patents for machine learning under Sections 101 and 112
  2. Anticipating and avoiding Sect. 101 or 112 rejections
  3. Addressing inventorship issues when patenting inventions directed to machine learning
  4. EPO approach to patentability of machine learning or AI inventions
  5. Drafting tips

Benefits

The panel will review these and other relevant issues:

  • What are the hurdles for patent counsel to demonstrate inventorship?
  • How can patent counsel meet the requirements under Sect. 101 and 112 in machine learning patent applications?
  • What steps should patent counsel take to minimize the likelihood of Sect. 101 or 112 rejections?
  • How does the EPO treat patent applications for machine learning technologies differently than the USPTO?

Faculty

Kennedy, Richard
Richard Kennedy

Partner
Venner Shipley

Mr. Kennedy is a UK and European patent attorney in the firm’s Electronics and Engineering Department. He deals...  |  Read More

Stein, Michael
Michael D. Stein

Partner
Baker & Hostetler

Mr. Stein has 30 years of experience working with technology companies and nearly 25 years of experience advising...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

$347

Download

$347