PATENT PATENT LAW L AW OUTLINE NOTE: Standards of Review Fact – clearly erroneous (if decision by judge); deference given to lower court Fact – substantial error (if decision by jury); deference given to jury Law – de novo; NO deference given to lower court
I.
OVERVIEW [see pgs 6!"6 for good overview#
II.
PATENT PA TENT CONSTRUCTION - § ! A.
$ypes of %lai&s' * ++! ,
.
Inde"endent C#ai$ – does not refer to any ot-er clai&
!.
%e"endent C#ai$ – refers to one or &ore clai&s in t-e patent (e.g. / wind&ill wind&ill according to %lai& 0)
*.
+.
a.
1ependent clai& s"e&ifies so$e feat're of t-e general invention clai&ed in t-e referenced independent clai&
b.
1ependent clai& is narrower t-an t-e referenced independent clai&; dependent clai& incorporates all li&itations set fort- in referenced clai& ( *' +)
c.
W(at (a""ens w(en referen&ed inde"endent &#ai$ inva#idated) 1oes not necessarily &ean t-at dependent clai&s are invalid eit-er since t-ey are narrower (less li2ely to anticipate or be obvious) [pg !#
d.
Converse3 if independent clai& is valid' dependent clai& &ust be valid b4c it is narrower
S&o"e of Listed C#ai$s – independent clai&s are listed in order' staring wit- t-e &ost broad and wor2ing down to t-e least broad
%lai& Language (pg *5)
.
O"en C#ai$: +road " an invention &o$"risin, ele&ents /' ' and %; clai& covers any e&bodi&ent of invention -aving ele&ents /' ' %' and any additional ele&ents
!.
C#osed C#ai$: Li$ited – an invention &onsistin, of ele&ents /' ' and %; invention li&ited to just t-ose ele&ents' so product using /' ' %' and 1 does not infringe
*.
C.
7atent $er& $er& – *8 years fro& date of filing
. %.
E&e"tion: Provisiona# A""#i&ations – * years fro& filing date
7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 &ont-s if t-at sa&e invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires publication after 5 &ont-s &ont-s
.
III.
ele&ents /' ' and %; a In-+etween – an invention &onsistin, essentia## of ele&ents product t-at contained contained ele&ent /' /' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infringe infringe if ele&ent 1 &ade t-e product essentially different fro& t-e clai&ed invention
7rior to <<<' NO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registered (pg 6*)
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12 •
A.
PRESU3PTION – w-en considering invalidity' invalidity' burden on c-allenger and presu&ption is t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and convincing proof
Overview
.
preli&inary description description of t-e invention3 invention3 w-at it is' w-at it does' does' and w-at inventions ca&e before it
!.
4'id Pro 4'o – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention wor2s (pg *><)
a. *.
+.
alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy (pro&oting science by public disclosure) disclosure)
Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6 – enable&ent' written description' definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode
=nable&ent ( *' +) ?uestion of #aw (pg !*)
.
@nventor &ust describe invention clearly enoug- so t-at 7AO:@$/ can understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it (pg *6*)
a. !.
7E8 " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ need 'nd'e e"eri$entation to reproduce clai&ed invention
9$' inventor inventor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e art (pg *5!)
a.
=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for so$e e"eri$entation' suc- as routine screening
*
*.
C.
7atent $er& $er& – *8 years fro& date of filing
. %.
E&e"tion: Provisiona# A""#i&ations – * years fro& filing date
7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 &ont-s if t-at sa&e invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires publication after 5 &ont-s &ont-s
.
III.
ele&ents /' ' and %; a In-+etween – an invention &onsistin, essentia## of ele&ents product t-at contained contained ele&ent /' /' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infringe infringe if ele&ent 1 &ade t-e product essentially different fro& t-e clai&ed invention
7rior to <<<' NO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registered (pg 6*)
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12 •
A.
PRESU3PTION – w-en considering invalidity' invalidity' burden on c-allenger and presu&ption is t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and convincing proof
Overview
.
preli&inary description description of t-e invention3 invention3 w-at it is' w-at it does' does' and w-at inventions ca&e before it
!.
4'id Pro 4'o – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention wor2s (pg *><)
a. *.
+.
alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy (pro&oting science by public disclosure) disclosure)
Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6 – enable&ent' written description' definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode
=nable&ent ( *' +) ?uestion of #aw (pg !*)
.
@nventor &ust describe invention clearly enoug- so t-at 7AO:@$/ can understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it (pg *6*)
a. !.
7E8 " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ need 'nd'e e"eri$entation to reproduce clai&ed invention
9$' inventor inventor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e art (pg *5!)
a.
=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for so$e e"eri$entation' suc- as routine screening
*
*.
9a&tors to %eter$ine W(et(er %is&#os're Wo'#d Wo'#d Re'ire Und'e [ Wands'' pg *5># E"eri$entation (fact analysis) [Wands
a.
?uantity of eBperi&entation necessary
b.
/&ount of direction or guidance presented
c.
7resence or absence of wor2ing eBa&ples
d.
Nature of invention
e.
:tate of t-e prior art
f.
Celative s2ill of t-ose in t-e art
g.
7redictability or unpredictability of art
()
-.
readt- of clai&s
()
C.
t-e &ore predictable t-e field of tec-nology' t-e less disclosure necessary to enable a broad clai&; :O' broad clai& can be enabled by disclosure of single e&bodi&ent w-en result is predictable (pg *<8"<) *<8"<)
/ &#ai$ can be broader t-an t-e specific e$;odi$ent disclosed in specification ( Gentry' Gentry ' pg !5)' 9$ clai& is necessarily li&ited by "rior art and specific written des&ri"tion
1.
Starin, 3ateria#s – if invention is &ade of &aterials (staring &aterials) not 2nown in t-e art' inventor &ust set fort- -ow to &a2e t-e starting &aterials to co&ply w4 enable&ent reuire&ent ( Wands' Wands' pg *55)
<.
%e"osit – 7$O -as depository for strains of &icroorganis&s' &icroorganis&s' w-ic- is necessary for so&e patent appls to &eet enable&ent reuire&en
=.
7olicy – teac- 7AO:@$/ -ow to do it; alerts public about li&its of invention
Dritten 1escription 1escription (ED1) ( *' +) uestion of fa&t' loo2 to eBpert witnesses (pg !) >REAT %E+ATE – &ost sc-olars believe W% is red'ndant w? ena;#e$ent; D1 is a -eig-tened standard t-at can be used to invalidate &any patents' especially tec-nological patents t-at describe invention in functional ter&s ( Rochester ( Rochester appendiB appendiB denying en banc -earing) banc -earing)
.
T(eor – teac-ing function t-at gives public invention in eBc-ange for &onopoly ( Rochester ' -andout' pg <**)
!
a. b.
0istori&a# – D1 was very i &portant initially b4c law did not call for Eclai&s
NOD' NOD' +road P'r"ose – D1 is not &erely to describe invention 9$ to convey w4 reasonable clarity to 7AO:@$/s 7AO:@$/s t-at as of patent filing date' invention was in inventorGs possession (pg !8H)
()
c.
!.
%an add clai&s after filing' 9$ can NO$ c-ange D1 after filing [no new $atter in disclosure' !*(a)#; :O D1 prevents inventors fro& adding nu&erous clai&s since t-ose clai&s &ay not be adeuately Edescribed in t-e D1
$ypically' D1 coupled w4 "riorit iss'es (§ !@) (D1 in senior application is not sufficient to cover clai&s in junior application)' OC w-et-er new $atterB was introduced into patent (forbidden under § *!)
Para##e#s and Li$its C#ai$s " inventor &ust -ig-lig-t or describe w-at s-e clai&s' and clai& w-at s-e -ig-lig-ts (pg *6*)
a.
7E8 – analysis evidencing patent -as D13 () does D1 provide any guidance to steer t-e 7AO:@$/ on -ow to &a2e ele&ents listed in t-e clai& OC (*) t-at t-e 7AO:@$/ would already 2now' at t-e ti&e of filing' -ow to &a2e t-e ele&entsI ( Rochester ( Rochester ' -andout' pg <*<)
()
generic words typically do not &eet D1 reuire&ent' unless t-ey are co&&on words to 7AO:@$/; instead &ust s"e&ifi&a## des&ri;e t-e invention OC give ran,e of "ro"erties w-en invention covers nu&erous e&bodi&ents
b.
@nventor need NO$ describe &ore t-an one e$;odi$ent of a broad clai& to adeuately support t-at clai& (pg !H); AOD=J=C ri,(t to e&#'de &ay be li&ited by narrow written des&ri"tion (disclosure); e.g. &ounted console in sofa in Gentry
c.
@nventor is entitled to draft clai&s as broad as prior art and D1 will allow (Gentry ( Gentry'' pg !5); 9$ D1 can be broader t-an clai&s b4c it &ay contain t-ings t-at were later rejected by 7$O
()
d.
Pioneerin, Invention " %lai& can state Eall e&bodi&ents of a particular invention invention if t-ey enable all t-e e&bodi&ents e&bodi&ents eBisting at ti&e of application (typically' (typically' very few e&bodi&ents since pioneering invention); invention); t-is Eall broad clai& would t-en cover i&prove&ents discovered in future
9$ " after Gentry' Gentry' to invalidate based on written description' court reuired &#ear or 'na$;i,'o's #an,'a,e in description t-at calls for narrower clai& (pg !<)
*.
Written %es&ri"tion %iffers fro$ Ena;#e$ent – its purpose is broader t-an &erely eBplaining -ow to E&a2e and use invention; it ensures t-e s&o"e to e&#'de' as set fort- in clai&s' does not overreac- t-e inventorGs contribution to t-e field of art as described in patentGs specification ( Rochester ' -andout' pg <*8)
1.
Written %es&ri"tion %iffers fro$ C#ai$ – a clai& describes t-e inventions f'n&tion or "ro&ess (i.e. w-at it does) and sets scope of eBclusion; w-ereas D1 describes t-e str'&t're (e.g. w-at it is) at ti&e of filing for 7AO:@$/ to learn' it is teac-ing &ec-anis& ( Rochester ' -andout' pg <*!)
<.
Ot(er Notes
a.
%.
b.
D1 analysis is not li&ited to cases in w-ic- t-e legal uestion is one about priority ( Rochester ' pg <*)
c.
1o NO$ need reduction to practice to satisfy D1 reuire&ent ( Rochester ' pg <*6)
1efiniteness of %lai&s ( *' +*)
.
%lai&s &ust be drafted clearly' so 7AO:@$/ can discern boundaries of patent (pg *6*)
a. !.
E.
%rawin,s alone can &eet written description reuire&ent ( Vas-Cath' pg !8H)' but t-e drawings &ust effectively describe invention in t-e eyes of 7AO:@$/ (pg !8)
@nventor &ust state clearly w-at is clai&ed and w-at is left free to public use
Po#i& – s-apes future conduct of persons ot-er t-an inventor by insisting t-at t-ey receive notice of scope of patented device (pg !8H)
est Kode ( *' +) ?uestion of fa&t (pg !>)
.
S';e&tive %raftin, ; Inventor – of all e&bodi&ents enco&passed in clai&s' inventor &ust state w-ic- one' if any' -e believes is &ost effective at ti&e of filing (pg *6!; Randomex dissent' pg !8)
a.
NO reuire&ent t-at inventor "oint o't w-ic- listed e&bodi&ent does -e consider t-e best &ode; inventor only reuired to list best &ode as one of t-e e&bodi&ents ( Randomex' pg !!<)
!.
Stri&ter t(an Ena;#e$ent – NO$ every detail of invention needs to be described to &et enable&ent reuire&ent' 9$ all t-e details of best &ode &ust be present (pg !*)
*.
Ana#sis – loo2 at evidence (facts) and deter&ine if inventor tried to &on&ea#
>
best &ode (e.g. used trade&ar2 to describe cleaning fluid rat-er t-an ingredients of cleaning fluid)
a.
$wo %o&ponents to /nalysis ( Chemcast ' pg !>)
()
S';e&tive " /t ti&e application was filed' did inventor 2now a &ode for practicing invention t-at was better t-an all ot-ersI
(a)
(*)
@f inventor envisions nu&erous of carrying out invention' NO need to -ig-lig-t best &ode (per Randomex' pg !<)
O;e&tive " @f so' did t-e inventor disclose t-is best &ode in a way t-at a 7AO:@$/ could practice t-e invention in t-at e&bodi&entI
(a)
Jiew fro& 7AO:@$/Gs ability; 7AO:@$/ &ust be able to ascertain best &ode
(b)
Ade'a& of disclosure is o;e&tive test based on () scope of clai&s and (*) level of s2ill in t-e art
(i)
est &ode needs only to be disclosed in a way t-at &eets enable&ent test (per Chemcast ' pg !<)
(ii)
$-is part of test per&its disclosure t-at reuires si,nifi&ant' but not undue' eBperi&entation (pg !>8); so inventor can say E-ere is best &ode and t-en describe it in general ter&s
1.
@nventor need not '"date t(e ;est $ode to include &odes discovered after filing application (pg !!); would fall under Eno new &atter forbidden per !*
<.
%istin,'is( Radomex and Chemcast – using trade&ar2 in Randomex was fine b4c cleaning solution was not an ele&ent in clai& so not part of invention; 9$ using trade&ar2 in Chemcast was NO$ fine b4c -ardness of gro&&et was an ele&ent in clai&' so inventor needed to disclose -ow to &a2e or obtain t-at specific gro&&et
6
NOVELT8 AN% %ERIVATION - § @! /C0. <2
IV. •
+ars "atent ;?& inventor was NOT t(e first to dis&#ose invention
•
DDDNOTE: to inva#idate "atent5 9ed Cir re'ires &orro;oration of witness testi$on re;'t "res'$"tion /§ !!2 t(at re,istered "atent is va#id5 3ORE t(an 'st "atenteeFs testi$onG &r'&ia# for esta;#is(in, "rioritDDD
•
&#ear and &onvin&in,B to re;'t "res'$"tion /e.,. "atent re,.2G ;'t on# "re"onderan&e of t(e eviden&eB if no "res'$"tion /e.,. "atent "endin,2
A.
Overview
.
T(eor – novelty of invention is li2e consideration for a ; societyGs contract wit- t-e inventor is binding b4c inventor -as given so&et-ing of value ( i.e. new) in eBc-ange for patent registration (&onopoly)
!.
Ti$in, " novelty is directed on# at events t-at occurred ;efore t-e ti&e of invention
*.
%ifferen&e A;road – novelty is &easured in 9.:. by date of invention (priority goes to w-o invented first); -owever in ot-er countries novelty is &easured by fi#in, date (priority goes to w-o filed first)
a. +.
$-us' novelty disputes (interferences) are uniue to 9.:. (pg !6)
:teps for Novelty /nalysis (pg !6)
.
%oes ite$ 'a#if as referen&e)
a. !.
*.
Ceference " any art t-at is relevant under 8*
Is t(e effe&tive date of referen&e ear#ier t(an &riti&a# date)
a.
=ffective 1ate – date &aterial beca&e part of art (e.g. publication date)
b.
%ritical 1ate – date of invention [note3 ter& is different for statutory bar analysis#
c.
7rior /rt – any &aterial -aving an effective date ;efore t-e critical date
Anti&i"ation - Is t(e infor$ation dis&#osed in a "re-&riti&a# date referen&e s'ffi&ient to render a""#i&antFs invention non-nove#)
/nticipation is a uestion of fa&t' deference to lower court
a.
/nticipation reuires a## of t-e re#evant infor$ation to be disclosed in a sin,e reference (pg !6>)' i.e. t-e reference discloses t-e identical invention
H
[NOTE3 if analysis needs &ore t-an one reference' loo2 to obviousness under 8!#
b.
Ever E#e$ent Test – eac- and every ele&ent as set fort- in clai& is found' eit-er e"ress# OC in(erent# described' in a single prior are reference ( Robertson' pg !65)
()
:tep – does prior art reference e"ress# include all ele&ents of junior patentGs clai&I
(a) (*)
@f prior art is a patent reg.' can loo2 at clai&s /N1 specification
:tep * – @f not eBpressed in prior art reference' were all t-e ele&ents of t-e patent appl. clai& in(erent in t-e referenceI
(a)
Li$itation on In(eren& " =Btrinsic evidence &ust be clear t-at &issing descriptive &atter in prior art reference is nevert-eless necessarily present in reference /N1 would be so recogniMed by 7AO:@$/
(i)
(b)
%ourt &ust view fro& eyes of 7AO:@$/; would 7AO:@$/ -ave appreciated t-e in-erent features of prior artI
@n-erency can NO$ be establis-ed by &ere probabilities or possibilities ( Robertson' pg !6<)
Create &(art to &o$"are "atent a""#Fs &#ai$ e#e$ents wit( "rior art referen&e
c.
d.
7E83 / prior art reference can NO$ anticipate an invention unless t-e referen&e is ena;#in, (eit-er patent or publication) [pg !58#
()
NO$=3 t-e enabling standard for prior art under § @! is watered down' prior art does NO$ need to disclose any use for invention' no utility needed; 9$ stri&t test for enable&ent under § ! t-at reuires teac-ing ( Hafner ' pg !5*)
(*)
9$' if reference na&es ele&ents but t-en states t-at aut-or4inventor was unsuccessful at creating invention' t-en NO anticipation (Wiggins' pg !5H)
(!)
7roduct itself can anticipate' even t-ose products t-at would not infor& public about -ow to &a2e t-e& (overlaps w4 Epublic use in 8*(b))
7E8: Li$itations on Prior Art – overall' novelty is strict test and allows &any for&s of prior art to destroy patent applGs novelty; 9$ t-e li&itation is t-at t-e prior art &ust be available to inventor at ti&e of
5
invention (see below eBa&ples3 t-eses in s-oeboB' Cronyn; un2nown isotope in radioactive waste' Seaborg ; unrecorded 2nowledge of prior inventors in NTP ; unappreciated stea& process in Tilghman; and lost prior art in Gayler )
e.
Anti&i"ation Co$"ared to Litera# Infrin,e$ent – analysis is basically t-e sa&e' eBcept anticipation deals w4 &aterial w-ose effective date is before t-e critical date (t-at w-ic- would literally infringe if later in ti&e' anticipates if earlier t-an t-e date of invention) [pg !H#
() f.
W( do stri&t nove#t ana#sis w(en ;roader o;vio'sness ana#sis t"i&a## fo##ows) %ourt believes it &ust follow t-is sc-edule in 2eeping w4 language of 8! (pg !H*)
g.
A&&identa# Anti&i"ation – if t-e result of invention was also found as an accidental or undetectable p-eno&enon in a prior art reference' t-e prior art reference does not anticipate ( Seaborg ' pg !H>' and notes on pg !H5); 7AO:@$/ would not -ave found reference
-.
C#ai$ Lists a Ran,e – if clai& lists a range' and prior art falls w4in t-at range' t-en t-e clai& is anticipated ( Titanim !etals' pg !5H)
i.
,en's v. s"e&ies (clot-ing to soc2)' a reference t-at discloses a species anticipates a later clai& to a genus containing t-at species' 9$ not vice versa (reference disclosing genus and clai& listing species) (pg !<8"<); euates t-eory t-at one can NO$ patent new way to use old invention
() C.
NO$=3 anticipation does NO$ apply to infringe&ent by 1O=
AOD=J=C a new species (i&prove&ent) can be patented if t-e new species is not obvious under 8! (pg !<)
1isclosures in =arlier 9sers' 7ublications' or 7atents [ 8*(a)#
.
!.
Stat'te
a.
nown or used by ot(ers in U.S. before date of invention' OC
b.
7atented or described in a printed publication in wor#dwide before date of invention
7nown ; Ot(ers in U.S.
a.
Not li&ited to docu&entary evidence' "rod'&t itse#f can anticipate (pg !<5)' or even oral testi&ony (alt-oug-' w4out corroboration fro& so&e ot-er evidence' ora# testi$on is not very strong) (pg 8*)
b.
P';#i& 7now#ed,e – 2nowledge w-ic- is reasonably accessible to t-e public' involves so&e type of public disclosure (drawing on tableclot-
<
not public in National Tractor Pllers (EN$7)' pg 88)
()
c.
*.
1.
NO$ satisfied by 2nowledge of sin,#e "erson b4c statute states Eot-ers; but NTP case also says a few "ersons worHin, to,et(er is not public 2nowledge ( NTP ' pg 88)
Lost Art – if prior art product is lost and no ot-er docu&ents evidence its construction' it can NO$ anticipate ( Gayler ' pg 8*); 9$ later case uestioned' but did not overrule' t-is rule3 is tec-nology ever lostI :-ould patent law pull bac2 w-at was once in public do&ainI ( Coffin' pg 8!)
Used ; Ot(ers in U.S.
a.
Non"secret uses in t-e ordinary course of business anticipate patent application (pg 8>)
b.
9se does NO$ need to be co&&ercial to anticipate' just observable by public w-en typically t-e process or device would not nor&ally be so viewed (pg 86)
c.
@nco&plete or unsuccessful eBperi&ent does not constitute use by ot-ers ( Rosaire' pg 8' and notes' pg 8>); AOD=J=C' eBperi&ent can anticipate and beco&e prior art provided it is perfected and t-ereafter beca&e publicly 2nown
Printed P';#i&ations Anw(ere (also applies to 8*(b) below)
a.
Not restricted to for&al publications suc- as widely circulated &agaMines and newspapers ( "oc#ms' pg 8<)
b.
+'rden on Pro"onent of P';#i&ation +ar " &ust s-ow t-at prior to t-e critical date t-e reference was s'ffi&ient# a&&essi;#e' at least to public interested in t-e art' so t-at so&eone eBa&ining t-e reference could &a2e clai&ed invention w4out furt-er researc- or eBperi&entation (reference was enabling) [ Hall ' pg #
c.
()
NO reuire&ent t-at reference was o;tained by anyone' just t-at it was accessible to anyone searc-ing (pg !)
(*)
%onfidential letters or restricted reports (e.g. &ilitary or corporate reports) are NO$ publications
(!)
$-esis or dissertations are NO$ Epublis-ed until indeBed and available in catalog' suc- t-at patentee could find it
Ti$e of P';#i&ation – beco&es public w-en it beco&es available to at least one &e&ber of Et-e general public (pg !); e.g. date newspaper publis-ed' NO$ date w-en writer sub&itted story to editor
8
<.
Patented Anw(ere (also applies to 8*(b) below)
a. b.
/ll 9.:. patents ualify to anticipate 9orei,n Patents
()
Uti#it 3ode# Patents – w-ere t-e utility &odel ualifies only as E"atented prior art and not a "';#i&ation under 8*(b)' t-en it anticipates ONL for it clai&s (disclosure does NO$ count) [ Ree$es' pg H#; b4c disclosure would euate w-at is 2nown or used and t-at is restricted to 9.:.
(a)
%.
AOD=J=C' so&e utility &odels -ave been treated as publications' suc- t-at clai&s and disclosure could anticipate
(*)
%esi,n Re,istrations " considered Epatents b4c it conveys eBclusive rig-t (pg 5)
(!)
Foreign patents &ust be accessible to public' but indeBing' cataloging' etc. are not reuired (pg <)
1isclosures in =arlier Filed /pplications [ 8*(e)# (pg *H)
.
!.
Kerely disclosing t-e invention ( i.e. not clai&ing but &erely describing)' is enoug- for anticipation and bar clai& in subseuent application (pg *>)
a.
Katerial disclosed but not clai&ed in patent is available as prior art ONL8 under 8*(e); NO interference under 8*(g)' b4c interference is available only for overlap in &#ai$s
b.
:enior patent constitutes prior art as of its filing date' not t-e date of its public disclosure ( !ilbrn' pg *6)
A$end$ent to @!/e2 " 1isclosures in patent application constitute prior art provided t-at t-e application eit-er issues as a granted patent or is publis-ed pursuant to **(b)
a. *.
NO$=3 if application abandoned prior to publication' NO$ prior art' 9$ if abandoned after publication' t-en it @: prior art
Se&ret A""#i&ations " applications secret for first 5 &ont-s
a.
7$O can NO$ issue 8*(e) rejection against junior patent application if senior application -as not yet publis-ed
b.
9$' w-en it publis-es it can be cited under 8*(e)
E.
1.
Provisiona# A""#i&ations – under 8*(e)' it appears t-at 7$O can cite senior provisional application as soon as it &atures into an application t-at is publis-ed or issues as a patent (pg *H)
<.
Swearin, +e(ind – 8*(e) says prior patent filed ;efore t(e invention; so if junior invention created before seniorGs filing date' junior filer can Eswear be-ind t-e senior filing and eli&inate 8*(e) invalidation clai&
1erivation [ 8*(f)# – patentee invented subject &atter of patent' it was not derived or stolen fro& anot-er [not part of Enovelty' but related#
9.
.
Need &ore t-an just assistance; -elp fro& anot-er is derivation if it () enco&passes all t-e ele&ents of invention and (*) is fully enabling (pg !5)
!.
NO$=3 big difference between inventor and owner; if you listed ot-ers as inventors (wit- intent of s-aring owners-ip) and t-ey did not -elp create invention' patent invalid under 8*(f) for $isoinder of inventors (pg !<)
*.
s-op rig-t rule
=stablis-ing 1ate of @nvention for 7riority [ 8*(g)# (pg >8) •
=stablis-es priority for interference and in general' but also is t-e general rule for establis-ing date of invention for ot-er sections of 8*
.
8*(g) is Narrow
a.
For priority' reuires &on&e"tion and red'&tion to "ra&ti&e (actual or constructive)
b.
/pplies on# w-en t-e inventions clai&ed are t-e sa$e
!.
@nterference' 8*(g)() – establis-es priority for interfering party; applies to interfering partyGs inventions created in U.S. or a;road
*.
eneral @nvalidation' 8*(g)(*) – priority for invalidation applies on# to inventions created in U.S.
1.
eneral $est for 7riority' 8*(g)(!) [pg "*#
a.
b.
=3 First to reduce to practice -as priority (e.g. build a wor2ing &odel)
()
D-at if parties reduce on sa&e dayI 1efault is first to conceive
(*)
D-at if parties file on sa&e day and can NO$ prove conception or reduction to practiceI Neit-er gets patent ( %assman' pg >>)
Filing valid patent application constitutes a Econstructive reduction to practice
*
() c.
d.
NO$=3 application K9:$ be enabling (per *); unless filing a provisional application under
First to conceive &ay prevail (E/) over first to reduce to practice (E) if / was reasona;# di#i,ent fro& a ti&e prior to Gs conception t-rougto /Gs own reduction to practice (eit-er actual or constructive) (see Christie $. Seybold ' pg <)
()
%i#i,ent P wor2ing towards perfecting and putting t-e invention into practice
(*)
Failure to reduce b4c no &oney is a consideration' but is not dispositive; s-ould -ave filed application to at least obtain constructive reduction
(!)
7ri&a facie evidence t-at first to reduce -as priority; so second to reduce -as burden to s-ow diligence
/ny reduction to practice t-at -as been abandoned' suppressed' or concealed is disregarded
()
9nreasonable delay in filing after reducing to practice &ay evidence abandon&ent or suppression ( Peeler ' pg >5)
(a) (*)
@ntent – &ust s-ow intent to conceal or suppress
(a)
(!) <.
$-is wor2s against ot-ers 2eeping invention as a trade secret
9NL=::' t-e ti&e period is unreasonable' t-en can infer (no need to s-ow intent) suppression' conceal&ent' or abandon&ent (pg 68)
Cebut @nference – delay was to perfect invention (testing and refine&ent); &ust point to t-e clai& t-at you were perfecting
7atent Office Cule ! – allows applicant to E antedate or Eswear ;e(ind date of prior art
a.
Oat- or declaration to establis- date of invention prior to t-e referenced publication (reject under 8*(a)) or appl4reg. (8*(e))
b.
%an NO$ use t-is rule to overco&e rejection (anticipatory reference) of3
()
9.:. patent reg. or publis-ed appl' w-en clai&s are t-e sa&e [&ust declare interference to deter&ine priority# OC
(*)
statutory bar [8*(b)' (c)' or (d)#' b4c invention date -as not-ing to do w4 t-ese rejections
!
c.
For Interferen&e' oat- &ust also establis- t-at invention -ad practical utility (reduced to practice) prior to cited reference; 9$ for e "arte reference (e.g. publis-ed article t-at does not set fort- utility)' inventor does not need to prove prior utility (i.e. w-at t-e invention can do)' so itGs a lower standard ( !oore' pg >8>)
=.
NO$=3 in an interference' applications were &o-"endin, (e.g. junior filed before senior passed to reg)' so to prove priority' junior need to only s-ow "re"onderan&e of eviden&e (no clear and convincing for presu&ption since senior invention -ad not yet passed to reg w-en junior was filed) (pg 6)
J.
Red'&tion to Pra&ti&e – occurs w-en an inventor or -is agent 2now t-at t-e invention will wor2 for its intended purpose (pg ><*)
STATUTOR8 +ARS /LOSS O9 RI>0T TO PATENT2 - § @! /C0. <2
V. •
Pre&#'de or ;ar "atent5 even if a""#i&ant is t(e first inventor of &#ai$ed invention
•
Ti$in, K &an (a""en ;efore or after ti$e of invention
A.
+.
7atented or 1escribed in 7rinted 7ublication [8*(b)#
.
prior to a""#i&ation date
!.
applies to patents and publications in t-e U.S. and a;road
*.
prior patent or publication would count as prior art under 8*(a) and 8*(b)' as long as t-e patent or publication occurred &ore t-an one year fro& filing patent
1.
alt-oug- patenteeGs publication cannot anticipate itself under 8*(a)' it can constitute a bar under 8*(b) if publis-ed &ore t-an one year to filing
7ublic 9se or On :ale [8*(b)#
.
prior to a""#i&ation date
!.
applies to use and sales on# in U.S.
*.
eneral :tatutory ar – can be caused by anone5 in&#'din, t(e a""#i&ant
1.
Se&ret Use /Trade Se&ret2
a.
b.
T(ird Part Se&ret Use " if party uses invention or process in secret and sells product' and public can NO$ ascertain process by loo2ing at product' selling product does not create public use for ot(er "arties (Gore' Pennoc# ' pg 6!") Inventor Se&ret Use " 9$' sa&e as above' would create public use against t-at partyGs patent application
()
7olicy " in 2eeping w4 policy of encouraging inventor to file early [Gore' pg 6!#
(*)
:o&e case treats trade secret use as abandon&ent (w-ic- does not create a public use bar for ot-er parties)' w-ile ot-ers treat it as public use (pg 6!"!*)
<.
Pro&ess v. Prod'&t – if patent on process' and process 2ept secret' t-en selling product by process constitutes a public use ONL if public could figure out process by eBa&ining product
=.
7olicies e-ind 8*(b) [pg 68#
J.
.
.
@.
a.
1iscourage re&oval fro& public do&ain of inventions t-at public reasonably believes are freely available
b.
Favoring pro&pt and widespread disclosure of inventions
c.
/llow inventor reasonable a&ount of ti&e following sales activity to deter&ine t-e "otentia# e&ono$i& va#'e of a "atent
d.
7ro-ibit inventor fro& co&&ercially eBploiting invention for a period greater t-an t-e prescribed statutory ti&e (*8 years)
arred if invention' more than &' months (rior to date of application [,ra&e "eriod#' was3
a.
7atented or described in publication anw(ere' OC
b.
@n public use or sold in t-e U.S.
>ra&e Period – inventor can publis- or sell invention during t-e * &ont-s after inventing and NO$ abandon rig-t to file patent
a.
race period &o$$en&es based on public use OC on sale use' w(i&(ever is ear#iest
b.
9$' if t-e invention is publis-ed and t-e inventor fails to file application prior to t-e * &ont- deadline' patent rig-t is lost
c.
encourages filing w4in ! $ont(s of invention
%OK7/C= to Novelty (8*(a))
a.
Novelty loo2s at date prior to invention' rat-er t-an Edate of application
b.
@nventor can NO$ anticipate -i&self under 8*(a)' but can create prior art under 8*(b)
On-Sa#e +ar "" two"part test (bot- are reuired); 1=:7@$= t-is test' not a
>
&ec-anical rule but rat-er depends on t-e totality of t-e circu&stances [ Pfaff ' pg >H' >5*#
a.
b.
9irst' product &ust be t-e subject of a &o$$er&ia# offer for sale
()
loo2 at t-e totality of t-e transaction and deter&ine if transaction was co&&ercial (i.e. would t-e Esales activity -elp inventor deter&ine value of patentI) [pg >5#
(*)
:-a& sales do NO$ count as on"sale bar
(!)
>enera# offer to sell does not count' ti&e would run w-en invention delivered; but s"e&ifi& offer would count as sale (pg >HH' -ypos)
()
E&#'sive# #i&ensin, t-e invention does not trigger t-e on sale bar
Se&ond' invention &ust be ready for patenting
()
Driting " inventor can describe &et-od w4 sufficient clearness and precision to enable t-ose s2illed in &atter to understand process; a uestion re3 ena;#e$ent rat-er t-an conception (pg >H6); OC
(*)
Ceduced to 7ractice
(a)
c. .
C$7 " invention does NO$ -ave to be reduced to practice to be Eon sale; inventor can sell product before it is ready b4c inventor can obtain patent before invention is reduced to practice (pg >H*)
T(ird Part Sa#es – sales and offers to sell by t-ird parties &ay also create statutory bars for inventors ( )bbott %abs $. Gene$a' pg 68<)
P';#i& Use
a.
b.
:-owing @nvention to Friends , =&ployees – NO public use if inventor $aintains &ontro# and t-ose viewing 2now to Hee" it a se&ret (eit-er eBpressly or i&plicitly) [ !oleclon' pg >6!">6#
()
Loo2 for eBplicit or i&plicit confidentiality agree&ent
(*)
@n contrast to !oleclon' t-e corset springs in *gbert ' w-ic- was given to ot-ers for free and unrestricted
7ublic use can be caused by t-e inventor OC t(ird "art 'nre#ated or 'nHnown to inventor' s-owing invention to public ( +axter ' pg 685)
()
:o' even if t-e inventor is 2eeping t-e invention secret (not
6
public)' an un2nown person &ay s-ow -is version of invention in public' w-ic- causes t-e inventorGs cloc2 to run too; encourages inventors to file uic2ly; 9$
(*)
c.
secret co&&ercial activity of inventor &ay constitute public use' 9$ secret co&&ercial activity by un2nown t-ird"party would NO$ constitute a public use (pg 6)
NO$ every detail of patent &ust be disclosed for public use' need only to disclose t-ose features clai&ed in t-e patent to euate public use (pg 6>)
!.
Sa#e v. Li&ense – t-e sale of t-e product or process of t-e patent ( so$et(in, "rod'&ed a&&ordin, to an invention) is public use' 9$ licensing or assigning t-e rig-ts to patent ( invention itse#f is s';e&t of transa&tion) is NO$ public use (pg >6)
*.
E"eri$enta# Use %o&trine – perfecting or co&pleting an invention to t-e point of deter&ining t-at it will wor2 for its intended purpose
a.
%efense for Inventor – ne,ates finding of public use' if use &erely eBperi&ental and controlled by inventor (pg >55)
()
(*)
b.
@nventor &ust retain control during t-e eBperi&ental period; invention can NO$ be used by ot-ers during t-e eBperi&ental period
(a)
Ka2ing ot-ers pledge confidentiality is a factor towards finding eBperi&ental use (pg 688)
(b)
No co&&ercial eBploitation is factor towards finding eBperi&ental use
(i)
Po#i& " @f not eBploiting' does not violate policy of li&iting ter& of &onopoly
(ii)
Kar2et tests P co&&ercial eBploitation
Is s';e&t 'se e"eri$enta#) – uestion of law; &ust loo2 at totality of circu&stances (pg ><); 9$ eBperi&ental period over w-en inventor s-ows ot-ers t-at it wor2s (pg >
(a)
1issent in %ogh says it s-ould be uestion of fact' deference to jury
(b)
D-y ? of lawI Qudge"&ade eBception; reuires eBercise of judg&ent ta2ing into account various facts (pg ><<)
E"eri$enta# Sa#es " do not trigger t-e bar (e.g. eBperi&ental lig-ting pole built on -ig-way; Dyo&ing later paid for t-e pole after it survived
H
t-e winter; not a co&&ercial sale' D was told it was eBperi&ental and confidential) [ !an$ille' pg ><#
C.
c.
3arHet Testin, – NO$ eBperi&ental use b4c it is co&&ercially eBploiting invention (pg 68)
d.
Red'&tion to Pra&ti&e – eBperi&ental use can NO$ occur after C$7; no need to eBperi&ent if inventor already 2nows invention will wor2 for intended purpose (pg ><*)
e.
Ti$e Period – no set ti&e for -ow long inventor can clai& eBperi&ental use; depends on t-e invention (e.g. longer ti&e to test running trac2 in winter conditions); deter&ine w-et-er inventor was acting reasonably in continuing t-e evaluation
/bandon&ent [8*(c)#
.
7arty":pecific :tatutory ar – triggered ONL by applicant (pg 6)
!.
$wo Days to /bandon
a.
b.
7ublicly and eBpressly renouncing rig-ts to patent; abandon&ent ta2es effect i&&ediately (effectively waves any re&aining grace period granted by 8*(b)) Trade Se&ret – in 2eeping wit- 8*(b)' using invention in secret after * &ont-s fro& creation effectively a;andons patent rig-ts (see Pennoc# ' Gore' KetalliMing' Kacbet-"=vans' pg 6!)
()
%.
[8*(d)#
. VI.
/lternative t-eory is t-at trade secret does not constitute abandon&ent but rat-er public use' w-ic- would bar ot-ers fro& filing for sa&e invention
7arty":pecific :tatutory ar – triggered only by applicant
NONO+VIOUSNESS /C0. =2 •
•
•
A.
Not codified until <>*' 8!; prior to <>*' patent only reuired novelty and utility roader test t-an novelty test under 8* Overall' obviousness is uestion of #aw' no deference to lower court (pg H5); 9$ review lower courtGs findings on Graham factors as uestion of fa&t' loo2 for clear error ( +ro,n Williamson) 7olicy
5
.
nonobviousness atte&pts to &easure te&(ni&a# a&&o$"#is($ent; invention &ust NO$ be &ere econo&ic or trivial c-ange fro& t-e prior art' but rat-er si,nifi&ant te&(ni&a# advan&e to &erit award of patent (pg 6)
!.
if an idea is so obvious t-at people in field would develop it w4out &uc- effort' t-en in&entives for patent syste& &ay be unnecessary to generate idea; would actually create social costs since public could not freely use (pg 66)
a.
NO$ all novel discoveries deserve patent
*.
granting patent to obvious inventions &ay co&pro&ise incentives t-at patent syste& provides to develop nonobvious inventions
1.
granting obvious patents &ay create a proliferation of econo&ically insignificant patens t-at are eBpensive to searc- and license (pg 6H)
+.
Pro&ess of 3ind – donGt ta2e inventorGs intent or process of &ind into account for patentability; also codified in 8! as Epatentability s-all not be negatived by t-e &anner in w-ic- t-e invention was &ade
C.
O#d Test – inventive ,eni's or f#as( of &reative ,eni's (Cno *ngineering ' pg 66H); criticis&s3
%.
.
typically lead to invalidation of patents covering relatively si&ple tec-nology; (pg 66)
!.
flas- of creative genius establis-es -ig- bar for patentable; also very arbitrary for courts to enforce (pg 66<)
*.
Co$"are O#d Test w? § @* – old test loo2ed for so&e special uality t-at &ade a new t-ing patentable; @N contrast' 8! co&pares t-e invention wit- t-e w-ole prior art and a fictional person (7AO:@$/)
Graham – :% addresses 8!
.
8! is a codification of Hotch#iss
a.
!.
0o'se Re"ort on @* – NO patent if t-e difference between t-e new t-ing and w-at was 2nown before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent (i.e. t-e difference is suc- t-at t-e subject &atter as a w-ole would -ave been obvious at t-e ti&e to a person s2illed in t-e art) (pg 6H6)
Constit'tiona# Re'ire$ents for Patent – pro&oting useful arts and science (Graham' pg 6H*)
a.
Patent Power is 4'a#ified A't(orit – Fra&ers wanted to end custo& by %rown of awarding certain parties &onopolies on goods and businesses t-at -ad long been enjoyed by public
<
b.
%ongress can NO$ enlarge patent &onopoly w4out regard to innovation5 advan&e$ent5 or so&ia# ;enefit
c.
%ongress can NO$ aut-oriMe issuance of patents w-ose effect are to re&ove eBistent 2nowledge fro& public do&ain' or to restrict free access to &aterials already available
d.
Ceuire&ents for patent t-at are in 2eeping w4 %onstGs goal of pro&oting useful arts and science3 innovation' advance&ent' and t-ings w-ic- add to t-e su& of useful 2nowledge
() e.
%ourts and 7$O' in applying %ongressG standards' &ust ad-ere to t-ese %onstitutional reuire&ents
f.
T(o$as efferson – patent is not designed to secure natural rig-ts' but rat-er is an induce&ent to bring fort- new tec-nology (pg 6H!)
() *.
:o' goal of patent was to find inventions w-ic- would not be disclosed or devised but for t-e induce&ent of a patent (pg 6H)
Hotchkiss S'$$ar – based on %onstl. reuire&ent' only E inventors s-ould get patent (i&plying so&et-ing original); if invention is obvious' t-en creator is NO$ inventor but rat-er sHi##ed $e&(ani& (one s2illed in t-e art' not adding anyt-ing)
a. 1.
/lso prevents inventor fro& getting anot-er patent on so&e slig-t variation' eBtending -is &onopoly
:o' Aotc-2iss reuires co&parison between patentGs subject &atter and bac2ground s2ill of t-e calling
>ra(a$ Test (pg 6HH) •
9lti&ate uestion of patent validity is one of #aw' nonobviousness lends itself to severa# ;asi& fa&t'a# in'iries (pg 6HH)
a.
1eter&ine scope and content of t-e prior art
()
For 8!' consider only prior art t-at is "ertinent to t-e field of invention (do NO$ consider nonana#o,o's art); $=:$
(a)
D-et-er t-e are is for& t-e sa&e field of endeavor' regardless of t-e proble& addressed' /N1
(b)
@f reference not w4in field of t-e inventorGs endeavor' w-et-er reference still is reasonably pertinent to t-e particular proble& w4 w-ic- t-e inventor is involved (pg 588)
*8
b.
(*)
ac2dating done for 8*(e) for secret patent application also done for 8! [NO$=3 8*(e) reuires inventions be t-e sa&e; no suc- reuire&ent for 8!#
(!)
8*(f) and (g) prior art is t-e sa&e for 8!
()
$i&e – ONL prior art at ti&e invention created
1ifferences between t-e prior art and t-e clai&s at issue are to be ascertained
()
c.
Level of ordinary s2ill in t-e pertinent art resolved
()
•
Factors to consider3 educational level of inventor; type of proble&s encountered in art; prior art solutions to t-e proble&; rapidity w4 w-ic- innovations are &ade; sop-istication of tec-; educational level of active wor2ers in field (pg H)
Se&ondar Considerations /O;e&tive Indi&ia2 – neBus reuired between t-e invention dis&#osed in 7Gs patent and t-e secondary considerations
•
NO$=3 w4out any Einventive ualities' t-ese considerations will not overco&e obviousness
•
:% in Graham said t-ey $a play a factor; w-ereas Fed. %ir. considers t-e& a fo'rt( fa&tor
d.
%o&&ercial success
()
E.
Note w-en 7 argues advantages of invention at trial' but advantages are not in t-e specification; weig-s towards nonobvious (pg 65>)
Ne's " if t-ere was so&e ot-er reason w-y product was successful (e.g. regulations now per&it it' big &ar2eting' large financing for advertising' invention not &ain source of co&panyGs success' etc.)' t-en does NO$ weig- for nonobvious
e.
Long felt but unsolved needs
f.
Failure of ot-ers to produce t-e invention (answer to proble&)
g.
Ot-ers copied
-.
Ceview of file wrapper' discussing rejected and resub&itted clai&s
O#d E#e$ents Co$;ined – a device t-at co&bines old ele&ents is not necessarily obvious; &ust use t-e ra-a& test to deter&ine if t-e co&bined effect is nonobvious
.
if patent &erely rearranges old ele&ents' but t-e ele&ents perfor& t-e sa&e
*
function' it is obvious (&erely s2illed &ec-anic' not inventor)
9.
Red'&tion of Pres'$"tion – in litigation' if additional invalidating prior art is discovered t-at was NO$ before t-e 7$O during prosecution' t-en t-e presu&ption t-at an issued patent is valid is reduced (pg H8)
.
>.
7olicy – do not need deference to 7$O since it did not review t-at prior art in deter&ining patent
Co$;inin, Prior Art – obviousness can NO$ be establis-ed by co&bining pieces of prior art reference suggests co&bining t-e features actually co&bined in t-e invention at issue
.
%orollary – obviousness cannot be establis-ed by co&bining pieces of prior art a;sent so&e tea&(in,5 s',,estion5 or in&entive supporting t-e co&bination
!.
0indsi,(t – to avoid -indsig-t"obviousness' apply rigorous application of reuire&ent of teac-ing or &otivation to co&bine prior art references ( embic/a# ' pg H*)
a.
b.
0.
I.
=vidence of teac-ing or &otivation K9:$ be &#ear and "arti&'#ar; broad conclusory state&ents re3 teac-ing of &ultiple references no enougPTO (as ;'rden to s-ow obviousness; t-erefore' did t-e 7$O produce evidence or just &a2e general state&ents about -ow references &o'#d be connectedI 7$O needs evidence in 2eeping w4 ra-a& test (pg H!")
SC Trend K W(i&( Predates Creation of 9ed. Cir. /!2 [pg H86#
.
8! (<>*) was supposed to overrule )P Gs synergistic approac- (<>8) [patent results in an effect greater t-an t-e su& of t-e several effects ta2en separately#
!.
in 2eeping' Graham (<66) ruled 8! codified t-e Hotch#iss (5>) standard (&ec-anic v. inventor) w-ic- lowered bar for patentability
*.
9$ Sa#raida (
9ed Cir Trend K Post !
.
!.
ebmic/a# – obviousness revolves around using old ele&ents (see above E-indsig-t) and if t-ere was suggestion to co&bine; t-is test see&s to lower t-e bar fro& t-e :%Gs synergistic approarcS',,estion Test to Find Obviousness ( +ro,n Williamson)
a.
need to find so&et-ing in prior art as a w-ole to suggest t-e desira;i#it of &a2ing t-e co&bination (pg H)' /N1
**
()
b.
t-at suggestion clai&s a reasona;#e e"e&tation t-at suc- co&bination would be successful (pg H>)
()
•
•
*.
VII.
suggestion or &otivation based on (a) nature of t-e proble& to be solved (prior art trying to solve sa&e or si&ilar proble& patent solved)' (b) t-e eBpress teac-ings of t-e prior art' OC (c) t-e 2nowledge of one of ordinary s2ill in t-e art (see Teleflex' pg 8)
if inventor faced w4 large nu&ber of variables and prior art does not give guidance' t-en inventive step is typically necessary (nonobvious); E&e"tion3 w-en it is reasonable to eBpect &ost or all co&binations to wor2 [pg H5#
Criti&is$ – alt-oug- t-e suggestion4&otivation can be i&plicit (w-ic- would &irror t-e :%Gs Sa#raida application)' too often courts loo2 for eBplicit' w-ictoo often restricts t-e obviousness inuiry to a literal reading of t-e prior art (pg HH) !1 Law Professors +rief – clai&s t-at suggestion test lowers t-e bar establis-ed by :%; :% is considering w-et-er to ta2e $elefleB case Tea&(in, Awa – in contrast to suggestion test t-at weig-s towards obviousness' teac-ing away fro& suggested &et-od weig-s towards nonobvious (e.g. &iBing salt w4 plastics tends to cause eBplosions' salt frog lure) [pg H*6#
IN9RIN>E3ENT K LITERAL +8 CLAI3 INTERPRETATION Pane# %e"endent – w-ic- judges on panel is crucial to -ow t-e clai&s will be interpreted (per 7et-erbridgeGs article)
/ successful infringe&ent suit reuires at #east one va#id &#ai$ to cover t-e accused infringerGs product or process
A.
Infrin,e$ent [ *H(a)# – w-oever w4out aut-ority $aHes5 'ses5 offers to se##5 or se##s patented invention w4in 9.:. or i&port into 9.:.
. +.
access and intent are irrelevant
C#ai$ Inter"retation K Two Ste"s for Litera# Infrin,e$ent
.
First " loo2 to t-e clai&s; clai&s deter&ine if invention is patentable and establis- boundaries for patenteeGs rig-t to eBclude ( 'estion of #aw; Philli(s at *)
a.
/L:O loo2 to s"e&ifi&ation5 drawin,s5 "referred e$;odi$ent5 and fi#e wra""er ; -elp eBplain t-e clai&s; -elps define scope and &eaning of clai&s
*!
!.
C.
:econd " deter&ine if clai&s read #itera## on t-e a&&'sed str'&t'res (infringing device)' @F ALL t(e #i$itations clai&ed are present in accused device' t-en infringing('estion of fa&t; Philli(s at *)
a.
9$' if clai&s do not read literally' still infringing if accused structure perfor&s substantially t-e sa&e f'n&tion in substantially t-e sa&e wa and for substantially t-e sa&e "'r"ose (pg 55)
b.
NO$=3 @f clai&s did not read literally or substantially t-e sa&e' c-ec2 1O=
>enera# Co$$ents (pg 55*)
.
Patent Prea$;#e – courts split re3 w-et-er prea&ble can be considered; typically NO$ li&iting w-en &erely recites "'r"ose or intended 'se of invention ( 0nno$a at 5)
!.
A;stra&t – state&ent in abstract &ay operate as a clear eBpression of &anifest eBclusion' but it &ust be direct or clear since t-e /bstract is typically a ,enera# state$ent about t-e invention
*.
%o&trine of C#ai$ %ifferentiation – applicants do not use two clai&s w-en one will do; :O if one clai& includes li&itation and anot-er does not' t-e clai&s cover different subject &atter (do not read li&itation in one into anot-er clai&)
1.
%o&trine of Prose&'tion %is&#ai$er – precludes patentees fro& recapturing t-roug- clai& interpretation specific &eanings disclai&ed during prosecution (1mega' -andout' at !*!)
a.
:tate&ents in -istory re3 disclai&er &ust s-ow clarity and deliberateness; 9$ if vague' doctrine does not apply ( 1mega' -andout' at !*>)
<.
S"e&ifi&ation – can -elp define words and p-rases' but li&itations in specification can NO$ be read into clai&s
=.
Prose&'tion 0istor – can use state&ents &ade during prosecution do -elp define words or p-rases (e.g. response to Office /ction)
J.
Lei&o,ra"(er – applicant can define its owns ter&s in specification
.
Etrinsi& Eviden&e (pg 55!)
a.
/lways can be used " dictionaries and tec-nical treatises
b.
Care circu&stances w-ere court is stuc2 – eBpert testi&ony' articles' and inventor testi&ony
c.
/N1' any eBtrinsic evidence t-at will -elp court understand t-e underlying tec-nology
*
%.
%lai& @nterpretation is 4'estion of Law' no Ht- /&end rig-t to jury on clai& interpretation ( !ar#man' pg 55); so 1% will -old Kar2&an -earing to deter&ine scope of patent for jury
.
!.
E.
Reasons for Law over 9a&t
a.
judges are better at construction of written docu&ents (patents and statutes)
b.
need unifor&ity' w-ic- is better served by judges rat-er t-an juries
9ed. Cir. in Contro#
a.
:% opinion in !ar#man (<<6) was dire&tive to Fed. %ir. to develop standard for clai& construction t-at lower courts could follow
b.
@n affir&ing !ar#man (uestion of law)' Cyborg (<<5) furt-er establis-ed Fed. %ir. as t-e body to develop rules on clai& construction; Fed %ir is 'ni'e# in &ontro# b4c no :% or statutory guidelines on clai& interpretation t-at it &ust follow
c.
Fed %ir will review 1%Gs clai& interpretation de novo (no deference to 1% or 7$O)
d.
9$3 Philli(s en banc dissent (*88>) – discussed t-e confusion Fed %ir -as stirred by disagreeing on legal standard (procedural or -olistic); argued t-at clai& interpretation -as no %onst. concern' so s-ould be a uestion of fact based on Fed. Cule %iv. 7ro. >*(a) (finding of facts only set aside if clearly erroneous)
()
Waste of ti$e to -ave evidentiary Kar2&an -earing about clai&s' and t-en do it again at Fed. %ir.; &ore efficient and accurate for 1% to construct t-e record
(*)
D-o ualifies as 7AO:@$/ and t-e state of t-e art at creation are fa&t s"e&ifi& to case and are not ,enera# &on&#'sions t-at are typical for conclusions of law
(!)
Co$"are " 1iffers fro& obviousness analysis' w-ic- treats ele&ents as uestion of fact and t-en overall balancing as uestion of law
9ed. Cir. C#ai$ Constr'&tion K +ased on Pet(er;rid,eFs Arti&#e
NO$=3 goal of Fed. %ir. is to obtain &onsisten& ; created b4c 7$OGs loose standards re3 patentability was casing doubts on t-e judiciaryGs presu&ption t-at an issued patent is valid and 1%Gs analyses were varied; :% wanted Fed. %ir. to develop patent law (pg >"6) .
Co$"etin, Inter"retive Canons t(at Create S"#it
*>
a.
%lai&s are to be interpreted in lig-t of specification and prosecution -istory
() b.
%lai&s &ay not be &odified beyond t-eir actual language by reference to t-e specification or prosecution -istory
() !.
Keaning of clai& language can NO$ be altered by i$"ortin, in c-anges fro& outside t-e clai&s
Ot(er Canons
a.
D-en different clai&s of a patent use sa&e language' give t-at language t-e sa&e effect in eac- clai&
() b.
%onversely – w-en si&ilar but different ter&s are used' t-ey -ave different &eanings
/ll ter&s in clai& are presu&ed to -ave &eaning in clai& (pseudo" canon) ( 0nno$a at <)
() *.
conteBtual reading; preserve function of clai& as ulti&ate state&ent of patent scope (pg !!)
:-ould not interpret clai& in a way t-at &a2es ter& superfluous
A""roa&(es to Tension in Canons
7rocedural focused on eBtrinsic evidence' 9$ -olistic focused on intrinsic evidence Philli(s en banc decision and dissent discuss tension between t-e approac-es NO$=3 K7F considerations' discussed below' in interpreting clai&s
a.
7rocedural /pproac- (6!R of cases) – relatively strict rules"based (ierar&( of inter"retive so'r&es; e&p-asis on ordinary &eaning of disputed patent clai& language (pg )
()
Trend – approac- -as gained favor over t-e years since !ar#man (<<6); two new judges -ave adopted t-is approac-' w-ic- is factor for trend
(a)
+UT' Philli(s en banc lists of * judges agreeing to -olistic approac-
(*)
@n-erently &ore consistent' w-ic- favors goal of consistency
(!)
Aierarc-y (pg !>)
*6
(a)
,enera# "res'$"tion " ordinary understood (by 7AO:@$/) &eaning of clai& language; objective baseline
(i) (b)
()
loo2 to dictionaries' reference wor2s' etc. (eBtrinsic evidence)
a#teration fro$ ordinar $eanin, – if t-e clai& ter& is vague or deprives clarity' OC t-e patentee -as beco&e its own leBicograp-er' t-en can loo2 at intrinsi& and "er(a"s ot(er etrinsi& evidence
Co$$ents on Provin, A#ternative Inter"retation
(a)
need significant proof t-at alternative &eaning is reuired (e.g. teBtual reference in actual clai& language w4 w-ic- to associate alternative construction' suc- as referring to written description) ( "ohnson World,ide); gives notice to 7AO:@$/ re3 alternative definition ( 0nno$a at H)
(b)
7arty will argue t-at specification and prosecution -istory evidence alternative construction by patentee to support4refute infringe&ent
(c)
For alternative' description needs to describe ter& w4 &#arit5 de#i;erateness5 and "re&ision ( "ohnson World,ide at <<); broad language re3 ter& does NO$ rebut ordinary language presu&ption
(d)
%lai&s will not be read restrictively unless patentee -as de&onstrated clear intention to li&it t-e clai& using words or eBpressions of &anifest eBclusion or restriction ( 0nno$a at H)
(e)
NO$= doctrine of clai& differentiation' li&itation listed in one clai& does not eBtend to all clai&s w-ere it is o&itted
(f)
Preferred e$;odi$ent by itself' or &ere inferen&es drawn fro& description of e&bodi&ent' do not li&it clai& ter&s
(g)
9'n&tion Re#ations(i" – clai&ed co&ponents &ust perfor& a desi,nated f'n&tion (e.g. function of water bottle tube and cap is to filter); weig-s against finding alternative b4c broader t-an s"e&ifi& f'n&tion t-at li&its clai& ( 0nno$a at 5)
(-)
@ncorporates K7F (see below)
*H
b.
Aolistic /pproac- (!HR of cases) – less structured analysis; w-et-er a clai& &ust be li&ited to t-e specific e&bodi&ent presented in specification depends in eac- case on t-e specificity of description of invention and on t-e prosecution -istory ( Cltor at !!)
()
>oa#: 1eter&ine w-at is ordinar $eanin, of ter& to 7AO:@$/ at t-e ti&e of invention ( Philli(s en banc)
(*)
T0US5 need to deter$ine ordinar $eanin, " fleBible; see2s correct &eaning according to t-e particular circu&stances presented (rat-er t-an following for&al steps and -ierarc-y) [pg !#
(!)
9irst: C#ai$ Lan,'a,e – widely accepted &eaning of co&&only understood words
()
Se&ond: Intrinsi& Eviden&e - Re$ainder of S"e&ifi&ation and Prose&'tion 0istor
(>)
(a)
:pecification is typically dispositve re3 clai& ter&
(b)
approac- relies -eavily on s"e&ifi&ation #an,'a,e and review or "rose&'tion (istor for interpretations
(c)
ter& will NO$ be ordinary ter& if intrinsi& eviden&e s-ows patentee distinguis-ed t-at ter& fro& prior art on (a) basis of particular e&bodi&ent (i.e. only one e&bodi&ent available)' (b) eBpressly disclai&ed subject &atter' or (c) described a particular e&bodi&ent as i&portant to invention ( Philli(s at *!)
(d)
NO$=3 using e&bodi&ent goes against canon t-at e&bodi&ent by itself s-ould NO$ li&it clai&
T(ird: Etrinsi& Eviden&e " less significant t-an intrinsic evidence
(a) 9.
supported eBpert or witness testi&ony' dictionaries' learned treatises' state of art' &eaning of tec-nical ter&s
3eans-P#'s-9'n&tion C#ai$s ( *' + 6) – alternative to accepting ordinary &eaning for ter& in clai&s; clai&s are t-erefore li&ited by specification
.
=Ba&ple3 7atentee tries to broaden clai&s by enco&passing euivalent structures by &erely listing a f'n&tion instead of a str'&t're (e.g. instead of rivet' list E&eans for fastening)
!.
Focus of @ssue3 w-et-er t-e clai& as properly construed recites sufficiently
*5
definite structure to avoid *' + 6
*.
$est (1mega' -andout at !*)
a.
@dentify t-e clai&ed function' $A=N
b.
/scertain t-e correspond structures in t-e written description t-at perfor& t-ose functions
()
Li&itation3 structure &ust be necessary to perfor& t-e clai&ed function
For K7F' clai& &ust -ave $ore t(an one e#e$ent; :O if clai& only -as one ele&ent' can NO$ eBpress clai& in K7F for&at (pg !*)
1.
D-et-er clai& is K7F is a 'estion of #aw ( Philli(s at **)
<.
Pres'$"tion – if t-e clai& lists E&eans' t-en it is presu&ed to be K7F
=.
a.
=Bception3 drafting around K7F – alt-oug- E&eans is not listed' clai& &erely lists a f'n&tion and not a str'&t're
b.
%onversely – o&itting t-e word &eans creates a presu&ption t-at K7F does NO$ apply ( Philli(s at **)
Li&itations under *' + 6 (see pg )
a.
F@C:$ " /ut-oriMes function clai&ing only in a clai& for a co&bination of ele&ents; a single ele&ent clai& can NO$ be clai&ed functional
b.
:=%ON1 – functionally clai&ed ele&ents li&ited to t-ose structures described in s"e&ifi&ation and e'iva#ents to t-ose structures' does NO$ enco&pass every structure capable of ac-ieving na&ed function
VIII. IN9RIN>E3ENT - %OCTRINE O9 E4UIVALENTS +'rden of Proof – 7atentee -as burden to prove infringe&ent' literal or 1O=
NO intent reuire&ent' just li2e literal infringe&ent ( Warner-"en#ins)
A.
%efinition of %OE – does NO$ eBpand clai&s' t-e scope of patent protection as defined by t-e clai&s re&ains t-e sa&e' 9$ rat-er application of 1O= eBpands t-e rig-t to eBclude to e'iva#ents of w-at is clai&ed (pg
.
NO$ literal infringe&ent but accused device is euivalent; accused device does not copy every literal detail
!.
9'n&tion-Wa-Res'#t Test " /ccused device "erfor$s substantially t-e sa$e f'n&tion in substantially t-e sa$e wa to obtain t-e sa$e res'#t (Gra$er Tan# '
*<
pg <5)
*.
1eter&ined based on w-et-er 7AO:@$/ would -ave 2nown of t-e interc-angeability of an ingredient not contained in t-e patent w4 one t-at was (pg <<)
a. 1.
Pioneer Patents – pioneer patents are to be given wider ranges of euivalence t-an &inor i&prove&ent patents
a.
<.
+.
9$' do not apply to broadly or runs counter to patent policy of notifying public w-at is patented and w-at is in public do&ain
NO 1O= for Un&#ai$ed 3atter – anyt-ing eBpressly listed in specification but t-en NO$ clai&ed can NO$ be captured under 1O= (pg <>6)
a.
J.
no official definition of w-at Epioneer &eans' w-ic- creates a place to argue' but so&et-ing li2e pat-"brea2ing develop&ent in a new field of tec-nology (pg <6*)
Po#i& – w4out 1O=' would be too easy for ot-er party to &a2e a trivial c-ange to avoid direct literal infringe&ent
a. =.
@nsubstantial c-ange gets 1O=; substantial c-ange NO 1O=
Reiss'e – 9$' patent owner can file reissue w4in two years fro& patent reg date to include disclosed by unclai&ed subject &atter ( "ohnson "ohnson -andout)
NO 1O= for ele&ents t-at were e"ress# or i$"#i&it# e&#'ded or &riti&iMed in specification (suc- t-at t-e invention is far better) ( Gas' -air dryer case' -andout)
1O= is 'estion of fa&t (Gra$er Tan# ' pg <5)
.
=vidence P any for&' suc- as eBpert testi&ony' docu&ents' teBts' etc.
!.
%an NO$ overrule unless clearly erroneous
*.
+UT' alt-oug- Warner-"en#ins affir&s it is uestion of fact' states t-at if "rose&'tion (istor esto""e# would apply or if 1O= would entire# vitiate a "arti&'#ar &#ai$ e#e$ent' partial or co&plete judg&ent s-ould be rendered by t-e court ('estion of #aw) b4c no furt-er &aterial issue for t-e jury to resolve (pg
C.
Co$"arison – Warner-"en#ins narrows Gra$er Tan# ' reuiring co&parison of accused product wit- patent clai&s (rat-er t-an t-e patenteeGs co&&ercial product) [pg
%.
A## E#e$ents R'#e – 1O= &ust be applied to ea&( individ'a# e#e$ent in &#ai$' NO$ to t-e invention as a w-ole ( Warner-"en#inson' pg
!8
E.
.
Ceuires e'iva#en&e to be establis-ed between eac- e#e$ent in t-e cla& and so&e str'&t're in t-e accused device
!.
7revents too broad an application' w-ic- would cut against public notice policy and reuire&ent to state scope of invention in clai&s
E&e"tions
.
Prose&'tion 0istor Esto""#e – w-en clai& is narrowed during prosecution to avoid rejection' can NO$ use 1O= to broaden clai&s bac2 to include t-e particular euivalent at issue (Warner-"en#inson' pg
a.
b.
c. !.
Pres'$"tion – w-en 7$O forces narrowing clai& a&end&ent' presu&ption is t-at estopple applies
()
Re;'tta# – s-ow t-at a&end&ent did not surrender particular euivalent at issue' OC euivalent unforeseeable at ti&e of appl' OC patentee47AO:@$/ could not reasonably describe euivalent (pg <>*)
(*)
+'rden on Patentee to s-ow w-y clai& was a&ended' and t-en court would decide if reason sufficient to overco&e estopple (pg
+asis for Ree&tion – &ost li2ely based on prior art' 9$ estopple can be used w-enever rejection reuired patentee to narrow t-e scope of its clai& to &eet patentability or statutory reuire&ents ( 2esto' pg <>) 4'estion of Law b4c based on clai& drafting' w-ic- is li2e clai& interpretation (uestion of law) (pg <>>)
A&&'sed %evi&e Covered in Prior Art •
NO$=3 overlaps w4 obviousness b4c loo2ing at prior art' 9$ concepts are separate (see Ed below)
a.
T(eor – patentee s-ould NO$ be able to get around prior art bar in prosecution by narrowing clai&s and t-en rely on 1O= to eBpand rig-ts to eBclude t-ose products &erely incorporating prior art (pg
b.
D-et-er an asserted range of euivalents would cover w-at is already in public do&ain (prior art) is 'estion of #aw (Wilson' pg
!
I.
IN9RIN>E3ENT K EPERI3ENTAL USE %E9ENSE A.
@n general' eBperi&ental use of a device t-at incorporates anot-erGs patent is infringe&ent' even not &anufacturing and selling; just use enoug- to infringe ( +olar ' pg 88)
.
+.
.
=Bception3 pre"&ar2et tests for F1/ approval are not infringe&ent ( *H(e)); $rade off3 drug patent owners' t-roug- patent ter& restoration' can get eBtensions for t-eir patents to cover t-e ti&e t-at t-eir drug was waiting for F1/ (pg 88H)
Narrow >enera# E&e"tion – can invo2e defense w-en use is for a&use&ent' to satisfy idel curiosity' or for strictly p-ilosop-ical inuiry
.
even t-e slig-test co&&ercial use will bar t-e defense
!.
-ard to s-ow no co&&ercial use' eBcept so&eone playing in garage; even universities use t-ere eBperi&ents for so&e co&&ercial gain ( !adey)
*.
+'rden of Proof – 1 &ust prove eBperi&ental use
IN9RIN>E3ENT K CONTRI+UTOR8 A.
:teps per *H(c)
.
K9:$ find dire&t infrin,e$ent by user of allegedly infringing device' /N1
!.
t-en deter&ine if 1 was &ontri;'tor #ia;#e
a. b.
Hnow#ed,e of t-e activity t-at is a##e,ed to be infringing (not reuired t-at it was infringing)' /N1 Hnow#ed,e of t-e patent
+.
S';stantia# Non-Infrin,in, Uses – defense against contributory liability
C.
E(a'stion %o&trine – once ite& sold' consu&er can use w4out infringing; sold ite& no longer under patent &onopoly (pg 8*!)
%.
Re"air v. Re&onstr'&tion – repairing ite& does NO$ infringe patent on sold device; 9$ reconstructing sold device (a lot of repair) would infringe
E.
.
=Bception to Cepair – provision in sale pro-ibits repair
!.
Cepair or reconstruction is 'estion of #aw
Ind'&e$ent ( *H(b)) – does not reuire E2nowingly' but t-ere &ust be so&e level of 2nowledge to -old 1 liable
.
no passive induce&ent (i.e. failure to ta2e steps to stop infringe&ent) (pg 8!8)
!*
I.
II.
ALLOCATION O9 POWER IN PATENT S8STE3 A.
Fed. %ir review of 7$O fact finding is court4agency standard' w-ic- is slig-tly lower t-an t-e court4court standard of clearly erroneous
+.
7$O Culings on Law – Che$ron 1eference (pg 6H)
.
w-en 7$O using its aut-ority re3 rules' Fed. %ir. &ust give t-e rulings deference
!.
w-en 7$O just co&&enting w4out aut-ority' no deference
%E9ENSE K REEA3INATION / §§ *@-*@*2 A.
+.
=B 7arte CeeBa&ination (pg *8>)
.
/nyone can co&&ence reeBa&ine by de&onstrating t-at prior art Epatents or printed publications raise a substantial new uestion of patentability affecting t-e validity of an iss'ed &#ai$
!.
validity uestion &ust be new and s';stantia#
*.
7$O -as t-ree &ont-s to deter&ine w-et-er reuest for reeBa&ination is valid
1.
reeBa&ination cannot broaden scope of clai&s (
<.
!8>)
@nter 7artes CeeBa&ination (pg *) – allows t-ird party full participation in reeBa&ination
.
9$' t-ird party cannot c-allenge oardGs decision in court' alt-oug- patentee can
III. %E9ENSE K %OCTRINE O9 INE4UITA+LE CON%UCT A.
7$O Cule >6 – 1uty to 1isclose (pg *6)
.
public interest is best served w-en 7$O is aware and evaluates teac-ings of all infor&ation &aterial to patentability
!.
t-e duty to disclose is dee&ed satisfied if all info 2now to be &aterial to patentability of any clai& was cited by 7$O or sub&itted to 7$O by applicant
*.
D-at is E&aterialI (pg *H)
a.
7rior art NO$ cu&ulative of infor&ation already or record; /N1
b.
=stablis-es by itself or in co&bination w4 so&et-ing else' t-e unpatentability of clai&' OC
!!
c. 1.
+.
Cefutes or inconsistent w4 position ta2en by applicant in response to 7$O O/
NOTE K Re;'tta# for Patentee – patentee needs ,ood fait( e"#anation ; could argue t-at t-e o&itted prior art is () not &aterial or (*) &erely cu&ulative
$-ree"7art $est
.
3ateria#it (issue of fact' clearly erroneous)
a.
b.
:ub&it inaccurate (false) infor&ation OC Fail to disclose pertinent infor&ation
()
broader t-an fraud b4c covers o&issions
(*)
=Ba&ples3 o&it prior art' failure to note public use and on"sale bars' false affidavits re3 dates of invention' and doctored data supporting affidavits
Ceuires proof by &#ear and &onvin&in, of a t(res(o#d de,ree of &ateriality of t-e nondisclosed or false infor&ation
()
c.
!.
7E83 $est for E T(res(o#d %e,ree – w-et-er t-ere is a s';stantia# #iHe#i(ood t-at a reasona;#e ea$iner would -ave considered t-e o&itted reference of false infor&ation i&portant in deciding w-et-er to allow t-e application to issue as patent (pg **8)
Overall 1egree of :i&ilarity " Kissing &aterial does not -ave to anticipate or render clai& obvious to be E&aterial' it &erely needs to be pertinent' suc- t-at t-e 7$O would want to see it and &a2e its own conclusion
()
Ot-er &aterials o&itted' besides prior art' could fell under ineuitable conduct (e.g. o&ission of co"owner' false affidavit)
(*)
+est 3ode – failure to disclose' or &islead about' best &ode can invalidate patent under ineuitable conduct (pg *6)
Intent (issue of fact' clearly erroneous)
a.
%an prove wit- dire&t or indire&t eviden&e; proof of direct sc-e&ing is not reuired
b.
=vidence of @ntent – prior art cited against foreign applications for sa&e patent' applicant -as license fro& prior art owner' patent involved in litigation re3 senior patent
c.
NO ross Negligence – per 3ingsdo,n' gross negligence by itself is NO$ enoug- to infer intent to deceive (pg *>)
!
() *.
+a#an&in, 3ateria#it and Intent (issue of law' de novo)
a.
C.
:liding :cale – t-e &ore &aterial t-e o&ission or &isrepresentation' t-e lower t-e level of intent reuired to establis- ineuitable conduct OC vice versa (pg *!)
9npatentable
.
if court deter&ines ineuitable conduced occurred' /LL of t-e clai&s are invalidated' not just t-e ones under investigation
a.
IV.
Need &ore t-an just 2nown or s-ould -ave 2nown to obtain inference; view it in connection wit- ot-er factors
9$' court can loo2 outside t-e clai&(s) subject of t-e litigation to deter&ine if ineuitable conduct occurred (e.g. can loo2 at specification' description' drawings' etc.)
!.
ineuitable conduct can occur at any stage of prosecution' including reissue
*.
Attorne 9ees " ineuitable conduct ualifies as EeBceptional and t-us leads to award of attorney fees (pg *!H)
INVENTORS0IP AN% OWNERS0IP O9 PATENTS A.
6' Qoint @nventors – need to apply toget-er' no &atter w-at percentage eac- wor2ed on t-e invention
.
!.
oint Invention – product of a collaboration between two or &ore persons wor2ing toget-er to solve t-e proble& addressed (pg *>5)
a.
need not -ave wor2ed toget-er at t-e sa&e ti&e' 9$ t-ey &ust 2now t-at t-ey are wor2ing toget-er (pg *6!)
b.
need not wor2 on all t-e clai&s toget-er; contribution to one clai& is enoug-
c.
/lt-oug- inventors-ip is 'estion of #aw' Fed. %ir. reviews t-e underlying findin, of fa&t w-ic- up-old a 1%Gs inventors-ip deter&ination for &#ear error (pg *H)
Con&e"tion – co&plete only w-en t-e idea is so clearly defined in inventorGs &ind t-at only ordinary s2ill would be necessary to reduce t-e invention to practice' w4out eBtensive researc- or eBperi&entation (pg *>5)
a.
Kay turn on w-en inventor -as ability to describe invention w4 particularity (pg *><)
b.
9$' inventor does NO$ need to 2now if invention will wor2 for &on&e"tion to be co&plete (pg *><); discovery t-at invention actually
!>
wor2s is red'&tion to "ra&ti&e
*.
+.
/round Owners-ip – NO' can not use to add oneGs na&e as inventor; inventor &ust -ave contributed; 9$ could use to get owners-ip (rat-er t-an inventor) or license (pg *6*)
'di&ia# Corre&tion of Owners(i" ( *6>) – court can a&end certificate if3
.
in error' person na&ed on certificate is not inventor ( $isoinder)' OC
!.
in error' person not na&ed' and error was not t-e result of o&itted personGs deceptive intent ( nonoinder)
a.
*.
V.
NO$=3 if ot-er party o&itted person on purpose' &ay be ineuitable conduct' w-ic- would render patent unenforceable to t-e& but NO$ t-e o&itted person (pg *65)
t-ese errors will not invalidate patent
C.
/&ending Owners-ip – can add ot-er inventors to application' as long as o&ission was done wit-out deceitful intent (pg *>6)
%.
Licensing by %o"Owners – eac- owner can license t-e invention w4out t-e consent of t-e ot-er co"owners (pg *>6)
E.
=Bclusive licensees can bring suit w4out t-e patentee' only if t-e licenses owns all t-e rig-ts to t-e patent; in ot-er words' licensee is assignee (pg *
9.
Non"eBclusive licensees cannot bring suit w4out t-e patentee
>.
Kust record conveyance w4 7$O t-ree &ont-s after eBecution or it will not be valid against subseuent purc-asers (pg *<>)
0.
:-op Cig-t – rig-t to practice t-e invention but not t-e rig-t to license anot-er to do so; s-op rig-t is personal rig-t t-at cannot be assigned (pg !85)
%E9ENSES TO IN9RIN>E3ENT CLAI3: %OU+LE PATENTIN> AN% ANTITRUST 3ISUSE A.
%o';#e Patentin, – can NO$ see2 double patents in atte&pt to lengt-en &onopoly; typically -appens wit- patentee drafts broad clai&s and 7$O divides out application
.
:tatutory 1ouble 7atent " III
!.
Non":tatutory 1ouble 7atent " III
a.
ter&inal disclai&er ( *>!) – can get anot-er patent on an o;vio's variation of patent' but t-at patentGs ter& ends w-en t-e original patent
!6
eBpires
+.
Antitr'st
.
/ntitrust Kisuse defense " defeats 7@ action and allows 1 to use invention royalty free
a.
VI.
9$' patentee can purge -er &isuse and (presu&ably) reinstate property rig-t (patent) [pg 86>#
RE3E%IES A.
@njunctive Celief ( *5!)
.
7reli&inary @njunctions
a.
!.
w4out 7@ relief' infringers would beco&e &erely co&pulsory licensees as long as t-e litigation lasts (paying da&ages as t-ey went along) (pg 88)
7@ =le&ents (/&aMon' pg 8>)
a.
/ reasonable li2eli-ood of success on t-e &erits
b.
()
7rove &oving party will li2ely prove t-at ot-er party infringes patent; /N1
(*)
Koving partyGs infringe&ent clai& will li2ely wit-stand ot-er partyGs c-allenges to t-e validity and enforceability of t-e patent (pg 8H)
1ifficult to prove w-en basing infringe&ent on 1O= (pg 8>) @rreparable -ar& if an injunction is not granted
()
*.
Pres'$"tion re Irre"ara;#e 0ar$ " presu&ed w-en clear s-owing of patent validity and infringe&ent -as been &ade (pg 8>)
c.
alance of -ards-ips tipping in its favor
d.
@njunctions favorable i&pact on t-e public interest
/ccordingly3 7@ will not issue if (pg 86)
a.
1 can raise a substantial uestion concerning eit-er infringe&ent or validity' /N1
!H
b.
7 can NO$ prove t-at 1Gs t-eory lac2s substantial &erit ( i.e. patent would not li2ely wit-stand 1Gs c-allenge' pg 8>)
:tandard of Ceview (lower standard t-an for :Q) – 1 needs only to prove s';stantia# 'estion re3 invalidity to bloc2 PI; does NO$ need to s-ow &#ear and &onvin&in, evidence t-at is reuired for s'$$ar 'd,$ent (pg 8H)
+.
C.
=&inent 1o&ain (pg 86)
.
9.:. ovt. – patentees can only get &oney (reasonable and entire co&pensation)
!.
:tate ovts. – patentees can only get injunction; &oney award would violate ta&end
7roperty Cules v. Liability Cules
.
in'n&tive relief is in 2eeping w4 "ro"ert rig-t; 9$ $onetar relief is in 2eeping w4 #ia;i#it rules (pg 866)
!.
7roperty Cules – generally are good w-en cost of transferring rig-t a&ongst parties interested in using t-e& are low co&pared to t-e costs of courts trying to value -ar& after infringe&ent (judicial valuation is inaccurate and difficult)
a.
*.
%.
7atents do well under property law b4c -ard for court to deter&ine da&ages to patent; court would rat-er issue injunction t-an allow continued da&ages
Liability Cules – costs of bargaining before infringe&ent are li2ely to be very -ig- co&pared to judicial calculation of value (easier for court to award da&ages)
a.
$e&porary – involves non"willful infringe&ent; infringer was not aware of patenteeGs rig-t (pg 86H)
b.
7er&anent (rare) – patentee not selling into &ar2et served by infringer' and t-e &ar2et is dee&ed i&portant to public
1a&ages ( *5)
.
:tatute reuires da&ages awarded t-at are adeuate to co&pensate for t-e infringe&ent (pg 8H8)
!.
Lost 7rofits (ex (ost da&ages award) – patentee &ust prove (pg 8H8)
a.
1e&and for patented product
b.
/bsence of acceptable non"infringing substitutes
!5
c.
7atenteeGs &anufacturing and &ar2eting capability to eBploit t-e de&and
() d. *.
consider also w-et-er patentee tends to give no' few' or several licenses
/&ount of profit patentee would -ave &ade
Ceasonable Coyalty (ex ante license agree&ent)– w-en lost profits can NO$ be proved' patentee is entitled to a reasonable royalty (pg 8H)
a.
D-at is reasonableI $-e rate at w-ic- a licensee would pay as royalty' /N1 yet still &a2e and sell product at profit' 9$ t-en increased since t-ere would be no deterrence if t-e infringer &erely -ad to pay t-e nor&al royalty rate (e.g. a rate freely negotiated between t-e parties) [pg 8H*#
b.
Factors to %onsider3 w-at was 7G property' w-at eBtent -as 1 ta2en it; propertyGs usefulness and co&&ercial value; and eBtent of propertyGs use (pg 8H*)
c.
Cate calculating fro& date of infrin,e$ent
d.
%an use eBpert testi&ony to deter&ine reasonable royalty
e.
Fallacy – t-e reasonable royalty analysis &a2es t-e assu&ption t-at t-e 1 &ade a c-oice to pay a royalty' w-en in realty it did worse3 it c-oose to infringe t-e patent (pg 8H5)
() f.
:-ould t-e court give a rate t-at give t-e infringer a profitI :ee&s li2e bad policy (pg 8H5)
1id t-e infringer weig- co&pare benefits of licensing and infringe&entI @f so' t-en infringe&ent was wi##f'# and da&ages are tre;#ed
VII. PATENTA+LE SU+ECT 3ATTER A.
%ategories of 7atents ( 8' definition of process 88) – 7rocess' Kac-ine' Kanufacture' %o&position of Katter' OC any New and 9seful @&prove&ent $-ereof
.
anyt-ing under t-e sun t-at is &an &ade
!.
=S%=7$@ON:3 laws of nature' p-ysical and natural p-eno&ena' and abstract ideas
a. *.
/lt-oug- a""#i&ation of a law of nature or &at-e&atical for&ula to a 2nown str'&t're or "ro&ess &ay deserve patent (pg H)
9tility analysis so&eti&es is blurred w4 novelty analysis in pre"<>* cases and nonobviousness analysis after <>*
!<
1.
+.
loo2 for transfor$ation; transfor&ation and reduction of article to a different state of t-ing is t-e clue to patentability of a "ro&ess clai& t-at does not include particular &ac-ines (pg >)
Livin, Or,anis$s – patentable as &anufacture or co&position' as long as t-ey are NO$ naturally occurring; &ust be &an"&ade ( Cha#rabarty' pg H)
.
natural t-ings
a.
can get patent on "ro&ess for eBtracting t-e&' but can NO$ patent t-e natural t-ing itself (pg 8)' OC
b.
c-ange t-e c-aracteristics of natural t-ing' t-us creating a new t-ing; e.g. iso#atin, and "'rifin, a co£' gland' cell' or gene (pg 8*)
() Cha#rabarty see&s to say any artificially created life for& is patentable; in 2eeping' artificially &ade oysters and ot-er ani&als (pg *5"*<)
c.
C.
%.
Aard to distinguis- t-e adrenaline in Par#e-a$is w4 t-e bacteria for legu&es in 2n# +rothers; court in Fun2 said bacteria was just doing w-at it naturally does
()
Kaybe so&e fields of tec-nology are loo2ed &ore favorably upon w-en deciding utility
(*)
ot- cases were decided before <>*; after <>*' obviousness would play a &ore i&portant role in t-ese types of cases
P#ants
.
can get patent for artificially created or bred plants (pg *!)
!.
%onst. says Eany new discovery' so %ongress eBpanded t-e law to cover t-ese types of plants
Co$"'ter Pro,ra$s
.
can NO$ get patent for &at-e&atical for&ula or algorit-& (t-is is covered under copyrig-t) (pg H)
!.
can get patent for process of &a2ing so&et-ing' w-erein a co&puter is used in t-e process (i.e. &ere application of a law of nature or &at-)
*.
7$O furt-er relaBed standard for co&puter software; software is patentable if its operation produces a 'sef'#5 &on&rete and tan,i;#e res'#t (pg 6); constitutes a "ra&ti&a# a""#i&ation of an a;stra&t idea' suc- as a &at-e&atical for&ula (State Street ' pg 68)
8
1.
E.
NO$ patentable – innovative software t-at generally increases t-e efficiency of a co&puter (pg 6)
9ie#d Restri&tions
.
field restrictions created by courts tend not to endure; 9$ restrictions created by legislation re&ain enforceable (pg 6>)
!.
NO$=3 $C@7: bars any type of field restriction (pg 66)
*.
+'siness 3et(od E&e"tion – before :tate :treet' could not get patent on business &et-od; State Street ruled t-at if a business &et-od &eet t-e reuire&ents' it could get patent
a.
7rior 9ser Cig-ts 1efense ( *H!) – gives defense against alleged infringer of business &et-od' w-en infringer was co&&ercially using business &et-od at least one year prior to t-e effective filing date of t-e business &et-od patent
()
$-is defense to a specific filed see&s to violate t-e $C@7:G agree&ents language about no discri&ination a&ongst fields (pg H!)
VIII. UTILIT8 A.
+.
%o&&ents
.
9tility based on 8Gs Einventions t-at are 'sef'# and *Gs disclose E&anner and process of &a2ing and 'sin, (pg *)
!.
7ro-ibits filing of patent application in t-e very early stages of researc-
*.
$i&ing " 9tility &easured at t-e ti&e no #ater t-an a""#i&ation fi#in, date (pg *6)
1.
D-et-er an invention -as utility is a 'estion of fa&t ( 2isher ' -andout)
Pra&ti&a# or S"e&ifi& Uti#it – does t-e invention -ave s';stantia# 'ti#it OC is it frivo#o's and insi,nifi&ant (a basic general or speculative use)I
.
low bar to pass' need only s-ow one specific and substantial utility
!.
?uestions arises in biotec-nology w-ere scientists create co£ but t-en do not 2now w-at it could be used for (pg **<)
*.
until process clai& -as been reduced to production of a product s-own to be useful' t-e &etes and bounds of patent &onopoly are not capable of precise delineation; i.e. uid pro ua for &onopoly is t-at society gets so&et-ing useful
