David Jackrel, Ph.D.

An invention cannot be patented if the differences between a claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Determining obviousness – and the validity of your patent – is more than simply establishing that the invention doesn’t already exist and that it isn’t documented elsewhere. Its conception must also not have otherwise been obvious to those in the field at the time.

The difference between getting claim construction right and getting it wrong is the difference between a valid patent and an invalid patent – and potentially the difference between millions of dollars awarded from infringement decisions vs. ending up with a worthless piece of paper. In this month’s podcast episode, we’re talking about costly tales of claim construction fails. This is the final episode in a three-part series focused on the fundamentals of patent claims and claim construction.

For decades, conventional wisdom had most of us believing that automation and the inevitable rise of the machines would upend blue-collar industries first. But then AI had something to say about all of that. From passing medical licensing exams to writing code to even acing the Uniform Bar Examination, AI has become society’s latest (and perhaps most capable!) change agent in the professional workplace. At an astonishing pace, it’s erasing all assumptions as to what industries will be most impacted. With the most recent advancements centering around the understanding and generation of text and images – the core ingredients to patents – it’s becoming abundantly clear that patent practitioners and inventors are far from immune to AI’s effects and reach.

The global video game market topped $183 billion in 2022 and is projected to exceed $300 billion by 2026. To put those numbers into perspective, this makes gaming bigger than the film and music industries combined – and dwarfs the combined revenue of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL! Worldwide board game sales, while significantly less, still account for over $2 billion. That’s a whole lotta IP in need of protection, so in this month’s episode of Patently Strategic, we’re talking games.

Think your invention is sufficiently enabled? If it’s a biological, chemical, or emerging technology invention then you might want to think again. Einstein famously predicted that gravity travels in a wave in his general theory of relativity, and 100 years later, the first gravitational waves were experimentally observed.  Some technologies, like those rooted in physics and mechanics, are considered “predictable” by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), while others, like biological and chemical technologies, are generally considered “unpredictable.” It follows that the amount of disclosure required to enable an invention is related to the predictability of the technology, and so-called unpredictable arts require more description to teach a reader how to “make and use” the technology. Similarly, emerging technologies, being less well known, also require more disclosure to be fully enabled. In this month’s episode, of Patently Strategic, Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting, along with our all-star patent panel, discusses some peculiarities of patenting unpredictable art and emerging technologies.