{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.256Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-17", "slug": "thaler-v-vidal", "titleZh": "Thaler 诉 Vidal：AI 发明人案", "formalName": "Thaler v. Vidal", "aliases": [ "DABUS United States", "Thaler patent inventorship" ], "summary": "美国联邦巡回上诉法院确认《专利法》中的发明人必须是自然人，因此不能把 DABUS 机器列为唯一发明人。", "professionalSummary": "先例性意见依据法条中的 individual、himself/herself 等用语作文本解释，没有裁判由人类借助 AI 完成的发明应如何分配发明人。", "whyItMatters": "它是美国 AI 发明人资格的约束性上诉判例。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "patent", "secondaryTopics": [], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action" ], "jurisdiction": "美国·联邦巡回上诉法院", "industries": [ "专利", "AI 研发" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 30, "impactScope": 22, "institutionalLevel": 20, "crossBorder": 8, "sustainedCoverage": 14, "total": 94 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-17:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-17", "formalName": "Thaler v. Vidal", "identifier": "21-2347", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "21-2347", "neutralCitation": "43 F.4th 1207" }, "forum": "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit", "jurisdiction": "美国·联邦巡回上诉法院", "type": "patent-appeal", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2022-08-05", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-21-02347" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-17:event-1", "matterId": "matter-17", "proceedingId": "matter-17:proceeding-1", "date": "2022-08-05", "type": "judgment", "title": "联邦巡回法院确认发明人须为自然人", "summary": "联邦巡回法院以先例性意见判定美国《专利法》所称 inventor 必须是自然人。", "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1", "matter-17:claim-procedure", "matter-17:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-17:document-1", "familyId": "matter-17:family-1", "matterId": "matter-17", "eventId": "matter-17:event-1", "title": "Thaler v. Vidal — precedential opinion", "originalTitle": "Thaler v. Vidal — precedential opinion", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-21-02347", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "govinfo", "publishedAt": "2022-08-05", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "21-2347", "neutralCitation": "43 F.4th 1207" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-17:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-17", "eventId": "matter-17:event-1", "text": "联邦巡回法院以先例性意见判定美国《专利法》所称 inventor 必须是自然人。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ], "asOf": "2022-08-05" }, { "id": "matter-17:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-17", "eventId": "matter-17:event-1", "text": "21-2347 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ], "asOf": "2022-08-05" }, { "id": "matter-17:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-17", "eventId": "matter-17:event-1", "text": "2022-08-05，案卷记录“联邦巡回法院确认发明人须为自然人”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ], "asOf": "2022-08-05" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "Stephen Thaler 为其称由 DABUS 产生的发明申请美国专利，并把 DABUS 列为唯一发明人。美国专利商标局拒绝申请，联邦巡回上诉法院以先例性意见确认《专利法》中的发明人必须是自然人。", "partiesZh": [ "Stephen Thaler", "美国专利商标局局长 Katherine Vidal" ], "aiSystemZh": "DABUS", "challengedConductZh": "专利局拒绝接受把 AI 系统列为唯一发明人的专利申请。", "allegedHarmZh": "Thaler 主张 AI 产生发明时应允许机器被指定为发明人；专利局依据法定文本拒绝。", "proceduralOriginZh": "联邦巡回上诉法院以 21-2347 审理，并于 2022 年 8 月 5 日发布 43 F.4th 1207 先例性意见。", "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1", "matter-17:claim-procedure", "matter-17:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "matterId": "matter-17", "titleZh": "法定发明人是否限于自然人", "questionZh": "美国《专利法》所称 inventor 或 individual 是否允许把 AI 机器列为发明人？", "contextZh": "案件以 DABUS 为唯一发明人，法院无需在多个自然人与 AI 协作事实之间分配贡献。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "联邦巡回法院以先例性意见认定法定发明人必须是自然人。", "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor:position-1", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "主张 DABUS 应被允许列为其所产生发明的发明人。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor:position-2", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "sideZh": "美国专利商标局", "positionZh": "认为法条只承认自然人为发明人，并在上诉中获法院维持。", "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "matterId": "matter-17", "titleZh": "individual 等法定用语的解释", "questionZh": "法条中的 individual、himself 和 herself 等用语，是否排除非自然人机器？", "contextZh": "法院采用文本解释路径，而不是评估让 AI 成为发明人的政策利弊。", "topic": "patent", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院依据相关法定用语和结构，认定国会所指发明人为自然人。", "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text:position-1", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "主张法条不应被解释为排斥 AI 发明人。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text:position-2", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "sideZh": "美国专利商标局", "positionZh": "依法定文本主张 inventor 只能是自然人。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "matterId": "matter-17", "titleZh": "人类借助 AI 发明的归属", "questionZh": "人类使用 AI 辅助形成发明时，应如何识别满足法定贡献要求的自然人发明人？", "contextZh": "DABUS 被列为唯一发明人，本案没有提交可用于判断人类贡献的协作事实。", "topic": "patent", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship:position-1", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "sideZh": "Thaler", "positionZh": "本案坚持 DABUS 为唯一发明人，没有主张自然人共同发明。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship:position-2", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "sideZh": "法院裁判范围", "positionZh": "判决只排除机器作为法定发明人，不建立人机协作发明的一般归属测试。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-17:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-17", "proceedingId": "matter-17:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-17:event-1", "date": "2022-08-05", "outcomeZh": "联邦巡回上诉法院维持专利局拒绝申请，并以先例性意见认定美国《专利法》中的发明人必须是自然人。", "holdingsZh": [ "AI 系统不能被指定为美国专利申请中的法定发明人。", "把 DABUS 列为唯一发明人的申请不满足发明人指定要求。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院依据 individual 以及 himself、herself 等法定用语作文本解释。", "现行文本答案明确，法院没有以政策判断改写发明人定义。" ], "reliefZh": "维持专利局拒绝相关申请；没有命令专利局把 DABUS 登记为发明人或授予专利。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "判决只处理 AI 被列为发明人的资格，不解决自然人借助 AI 形成发明时的贡献和共同发明问题。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "Matter 标记为已裁判，现有案卷未列后续上诉程序；43 F.4th 1207 作为联邦巡回法院先例性意见有效。", "documentIds": [ "matter-17:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-17:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-statutory-text-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-statutory-text-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-natural-person-inventor", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-statutory-text-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-statutory-text-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-statutory-text", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-17-matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship-knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "documentId": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表支持承认机器发明人资格的一种学术立场，用于与法院坚持自然人发明人的理由对照。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "familyId": "knowledge-family-i-think-therefore-i-invent", "title": "我思，故我发明", "originalTitle": "I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", "url": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/566", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-college-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-09-28", "author": "Ryan Abbott", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "主张在机器实际完成发明构思时承认非人类发明人可能更符合创新激励，并讨论所有权、劳动替代和创造性判断标准随之产生的问题。", "venue": "Boston College Law Review 57(4): 1079–1126", "publisher": "Boston College Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "boston-college-law-review:57:4:566" }, "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-17-matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship-news-context-dabus-european-patent", "matterId": "matter-17", "issueId": "matter-17:issue-human-ai-inventorship", "documentId": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 DABUS 和其他 AI 发明人案件提供欧洲专利制度的专业观察与程序背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-dabus-european-patent", "familyId": "news-family-dabus-european-patent", "title": "DABUS 再次被欧洲专利体系拒绝", "originalTitle": "DABUS AI Again Denied European Patent", "url": "https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/denied-european-patent.html", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "patently-o", "publishedAt": "2024-12-21", "author": "Dennis Crouch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章结合欧洲专利局新决定和 J 8/20，解释自然人发明人要求、权利来源声明以及 DABUS 申请中相互矛盾的发明人陈述。", "venue": "Patently-O", "publisher": "Patently-O", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "该文既报道欧洲专利局的程序结果，也分析现行制度为何要求自然人发明人。它适合解释 DABUS 争议，但程序状态仍以欧洲专利局文书为准。", "legalTopics": [ "patent" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "govinfo", "slug": "govinfo", "name": "GovInfo — United States Courts Opinions", "homepage": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/USCOURTS", "type": "government", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "美国政府出版局保存法院提交的判决与命令，具备案号、法院和文书定位。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "boston-college-law-review", "slug": "boston-college-law-review", "name": "Boston College Law Review", "homepage": "https://bclawreview.bc.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，出版平台提供作者、卷期、页码和稳定文章记录。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "patently-o", "slug": "patently-o", "name": "Patently-O", "homepage": "https://patentlyo.com/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "长期追踪美国专利判例和政策的专业出版物，通常深链案卷材料；评论与裁判结论分开。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 15, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 88 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/thaler-v-vidal" }