|DATE AND TIME||TEAM||ROOM||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE|
|Fri. April 3|
|5:30PM - 7:00PM||Giles S. Rich||Teams||Kimberly Macey||Mikayla O'Neal||cecilia grimaldi||Justine Jung||Shannon Gillespie McComb|
|Mon. April 6|
|7:00PM - 8:30PM||Giles S. Rich||Teams||Rachel Winer||Kimberly Macey||Stephanie Richardson||Shannon Gillespie McComb||Charles Tait Graves|
|Tue. April 7|
|10:00AM - 12:00PM||Giles S. Rich||Teams||Rachel Winer||Stephanie Richardson|
|Thu. April 9|
|3:30PM - 5:30PM||Giles S. Rich||Teams||Kimberly Macey||Tina Nguyen||Geoff Fitzpatrick|
|Fri. April 10|
|5:30PM - 7:00PM||Giles S. Rich||Teams||Kimberly Macey||Rachel Winer||Geoffrey Fitzpatrick|
Natalie Ryang and Han (Lu) Ling
Hal is a sentient AI program created by Dr. Schrodinger. Pet Accessories, Inc. (PA) hired Hal to help develop pet accessories. Hal invented an automated pet food dispenser, and PA applied for a patent on the invention. The application listed Dr. Schrodinger as the inventor, not Hal. The patent was granted.
PA sued Purr-fect Technologies, Inc. (PTI) for patent infringement. PTI argued that PA's patent was invalid for improper inventorship because neither Dr. Schrodinger nor Hal can be listed as an inventor on the patent. PTI also argued that the patent's claim includes a means-plus-function limitation under 35 USC 112(f) and that the limitation is indefinite under 112(b) because no structure is disclosed in the patent's specification that corresponds to the limitation.
The district court found for PTI on both issues. PA now appeals. The two issues on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are:
1. Whether claim 1 of the '399 patent is invalid as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
2. Whether the '399 patent is invalid for incorrect inventorship.
Last practice April 14.