Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed?

Ramalho, Ana·2018·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.3168703
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3168703

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. D S Chisum, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a2_597 · DOI
  2. D S Chisum, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a2_597 · DOI
  3. J Sherkow, 2011, The author gives as an example of arts from the same field but that solve different problems toothbrushes and hairbrushes; and provides the case of cone-shaped caps for oil decanters and cone-shaped caps for bags of popcorn as an example of arts that exist in different fields of endeavor but solve the same problem or have the same purpose, 1109
  4. 1941, where the patent on an automobile cigarette lighter with a thermostatic control was invalidated because similar thermostats had been used in analogous arts (such as toasters or irons), or Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co, US, 314
  5. D S Chisum, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a2_597 · DOI
  6. 1983, Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co, 713 F, 2
  7. Ibid, 10.2307/j.ctt207g8bt.22 · DOI
  8. Boards of Appeal of the EPO, para. 12; case Recup Svenska vs, case Scintillation Media/Fisher Scientific (T989/93)
  9. Case Yellow Dyes (T254/86), Boards of Appeal of the EPO
  10. A E Plc, Part G -Chapter
  11. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  12. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  13. S Merrifield, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  14. S Merrifield, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  15. Case Blount, Boards of Appeal of the EPO, T699/91)
  16. Case Pyrazolopyrimidinones for the treatment of impotence/ Pfizer Limited et al (T1212/01), Boards of Appeal of the EPO
  17. Boards of Appeal of the EPO ; Case Cleaning lenses/Allergan (T712/92), Boards of Appeal of the EPO, Ciba Spezialitaetenchemie (T73/95)
  18. Boards of Appeal of the EPO, Case Emissionsarme Dispersionsfarben/Clariant (T231/97)
  19. Aeg Case, Siemens (T506/92), Boards of Appeal of the EPO
  20. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  21. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  22. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  23. Case Pencil Sharpener (T-176/84), Boards of Appeal of the EPO
  24. Case Filler mass/ N.I. Industries (T-560/89), Boards of Appeal of the EPO
  25. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  26. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  27. Epo Guidelines, 10.1016/s0167-5060(08)70952-x · DOI
  28. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  29. D Visser, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  30. S Merrifield, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_219 · DOI
  31. C Seville, EPO Guidelines, Part F -Chapter, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a2_397 · DOI
  32. T Abe & K, 2013, Japan: hindsight excluded in inventive step
  33. 2010, Gyo-Ke) 10075
  34. 2012, Gyo-Ke) 10186
  35. )(i) of the JPA, Article, 36
  36. N Nakayama, Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan, Part II
  37. T Abe & K, 2013, Japan: hindsight excluded in inventive step
  38. M J Adelman, 2015, Cases and Materials on Patent Law
  39. B Andersen, 2003, The rationales for intellectual property rights: the twenty-first century controversies
  40. F K Beier & J, 1977, The patent system and its informational function -yesterday and today, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 8, 387
  41. R D Clifford, 1997, Intellectual property in the era of the creative computer program: will the true Published by the Institute of Intellectual Property, Foundation for Intellectual Property of Japan 28 creator please stand up?, Tulane Law Review, 71, 1675
  42. C Dent, 2017, The purpose of patents for invention: regulation of exchange versus incentive, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3, 245
  43. J Duffy, 2007, Inventing invention: A case study of legal innovation, Texas Law Review, 86, 1
  44. W Fisher, 2001, Theories of intellectual property
  45. Granstrand, 2003, Seeking Strategies for Research and Teaching in a Developing Field, Economics, Law and Intellectual Property, 223, 10.1007/978-1-4757-3750-9_11 · DOI
  46. 2017, Workshop: addressing patent eligibility challenge, 10.2139/ssrn.3050093 · DOI
  47. Published by the Institute of Intellectual Property, Foundation for Intellectual Property of Japan 30
  48. S Merrifield, 2008, European Patent Convention 2000: Substantive Patent Law, Concise European Patent Law
  49. L Pessers, 2016, The inventiveness requirement in patent law: an exploration of its foundations and functioning
  50. C Seville, 2016, Published by the Institute of Intellectual Property, Foundation for Intellectual, EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy, 10.4337/9781781003480 · DOI
  51. U Storz, 2014, Patentability requirements of biotech patents, Biopatent Law: European vs. US Patent Law, 10.1007/978-3-642-41293-6_1 · DOI
  52. J Straus & N, 2007, Harmonization of International Patent Law, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 38, 907
  53. Wipo, 2015, Study on inventive step, 10.6027/9789289347235-15-en · DOI
  54. Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation, 2001), translation by the Institute of Intellectual Property. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, White Paper 2016 Information and Communications in Japan, Chapter 4, Section 2 Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence, Industrial Property Laws Section-by-Section Summary, 233

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ramalho, A.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
ISSN
1556-5068
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.3168703
Cited by
20
References
58
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.