On April 22, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) upheld a patent examiner’s rejection of a patent application listing an artificial intelligence (“AI”) neural network named “DABUS” as its sole inventor. The USPTO reasoned that conception of an invention could be performed only by a natural person. The finding was based on the plain language of the Patent Act and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, as well as Federal Circuit precedent describing conception as a “formation of the mind of the inventor” and a “mental act.” The ruling, though consistent with current law, undoubtedly presents questions about how patent law should address AI-inventions in the future. Unsurprisingly, as AI has become more ubiquitous and advanced, there has been an uptick in AI-related patent application filings at the USPTO. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual number of AI patent applications increased by more than 100%. In response to this surge, the USPTO initiated a “request for comments” in 2019 on AI-inventions from both industry and the general public. The survey posed twelve questions about how certain areas of patent law for AI-inventions should be addressed including inventorship and ownership, non-obviousness, written description and enablement, prior art, and subject matter eligibility. This commentary will explore inventorship and ownership, prior art, infringement liability, and non-obviousness issues. It will analyze how well the current law can address them and posit ideas on how they should be resolved by the Patent Act in the future.
In order to determine how patent law should address “AI-inventions” going forward, it is imperative to first explicitly define that term. The USPTO has suggested that AI-inventions may refer both to inventions that utilize AI, as well as inventions that are generated by AI. These conceptions, however, are vastly different and require independent analysis. This commentary will primarily consider only those inventions that were developed or generated by AI.
In light of recent legal and policy developments that have destabilized settled asylum law in general and diminished relief for gender-based claims in particular, this commentary examines the evolution of refugee law for gender-based claims. As United States caselaw currently stands, administrative and judicial interpretations threaten to bar applicants with gender-based claims from meeting their burdens to demonstrate eligibility for statutory relief. In exploring the evolution of this caselaw, this commentary argues that where more historically reliable forms of relief may fail, withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Convention Against Torture” or CAT”) can and should fill the gap and provide protection—despite its limitations—for survivors of domestic and gender-based violence seeking to enter the United States.
Generally, states consider an individual an adult on his or her eighteenth birthday. This seemingly innocuous birthday signifies a transition from the protections afforded to minors in the juvenile justice system to the harsh criminal justice system. As a result, very often, young adults who break the law fail to consider the starkly different treatment they will encounter in the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, the repercussions of their encounter with the criminal justice system are everlasting. Young adults, like juveniles, may be unable to consider the impact of what they will in hindsight consider to be very stupid mistakes. And young adults, like juveniles, may be able to learn from their mistakes and rehabilitate themselves. Because of this, it is vital that the criminal proceedings and records of young adults be kept confidential to enable them to fully rehabilitate and re integrate into society.
The sports gambling market is one of the most rapidly growing markets in the United States. As legal sportsbooks continue to launch their online platforms, build state-of-the-art sportsbook locations throughout the country, and expand their customer base, more and more bets continue to be placed not only in the state of New Jersey, but also in all states where sports gambling has been legalized. Sportsbooks offer bets of all kinds, on any sport you can imagine, and in several different forms. One would think that if the New Jersey sportsbooks offer bets as outlandish as the Gatorade color poured on the winning coach of the Super Bowl, then they would certainly, at the bare minimum, offer bets on Rutgers Football and Seton Hall Basketball. Surprisingly, this is not so. With the large variety of bets that may be placed in the State of New Jersey comes one type of bet that you are not allowed to make, and that is a bet on any collegiate event taking place within the state, or any out-of-state collegiate event involving a New Jersey state school. In addition to this prohibition being very poor public policy, it is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and affects the sports gambling market on a global scale.
On-campus sexual assault is a crisis affecting men and women all over the country. Under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, all public institutions are “legally required to respond to and remedy hostile educational environments and the failure to do so is a violation that means a school could risk losing its federal funding.” Title IX proceedings, however, can potentially lead to inefficient decision-making, and the remedies may vary dramatically, leaving survivors retraumatized and unsure of what to expect. In 2018, the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, published drafts of regulations that would give institutions greater leeway in deciding how to implement Title IX. Therefore, it is likely that there will always be issues with the implementation of Title IX, as the law has become increasingly more affected by politics. So, while it remains a choice for victims at public universities, Title IX may not always be the best choice for victims.
Rutgers University Law Review