Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Federal Circuit

Federal Circuit: AIs Are Inventions, Not Inventors

By Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on

Modern AI (artificial intelligence) involves sophisticated algorithms and massive computing power. AI has been used to solve numerous problems, and it seems AI's only limit is human creativity. Despite its successes, however, no AI has reached sentience (or even so-called "strong" AI), despite claims that a Google employee recently made regarding LaMDA. We are a ways away from HAL 9000, but even so, weak AI is powering numerous industries and helping researchers, scientists, and others develop groundbreaking and novel technologies.

Adams v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7162

By FindLaw Staff | Last updated on

In a petition for review of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' order setting an effective date for Petitioner's receipt of disability benefits, the petition is denied where an earlier decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs implicitly denied Petitioner's informal claim that his heart condition was connected to his military service. Read the full decision in Adams v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7162. Marshall O. Potter, Jr., of Vienna, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant.

Dr. Dre Loses Trademark Case Against Dr. Drai

By William Vogeler, Esq. | Last updated on

Dr. Dre, the rap star, sued to block a trademark by Dr. Drai, a gynecologist. Dr. Draion Bruch, who goes by Dr. Drai, said he uses his short name for business purposes. Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, said the trademark would confuse people. The Patent and Trademark Office was not confused, however, and ruled against the music man in Young v. Burch. But what is mind-blowing, how come the highest paid doctor is a rapper? Doctor, Doctor How rich is Dr. Dre?

Abbott Labs. v. US, No. 09-5014

By FindLaw Staff | Last updated on

In a dispute involving a request for a tax refund, Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed where the government's interpretation of the law is entitled to deference as its denial of plaintiff's refund claim on grounds that the assessment period under 26 U.S.C. sec. 6501 had expired was reasonable and not inconsistent with any prior interpretation that was entitled to deference.     Read Abbott Labs. v. US, No.

Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, No. 08-1152

By FindLaw Staff | Last updated on

In a patent infringement case involving a method for detecting fraudulent bank checks, district court's dismissal of certain counts of plaintiff's suit is affirmed as the allegedly infringing activity was for the United States and with its authorization and consent and thus could only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1498(a).    Read Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, No.

Copied to clipboard