I. Introduction 4




Yüklə 414.7 Kb.
səhifə1/15
tarix11.04.2016
ölçüsü414.7 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15


I. Introduction 4

Infringement analysis: 4

1.Meaning & scope of the asserted claim? (amenable to summary j’ment) 4

Patent is an absolute right to exclude 4

Justifications 4

Issues 4


II. Obtaining the Patent Grant 6

Filing the patent app w/ PTO 6

Written description 6

Claims—establish metes & bounds of owner’s right to exclude (p.102) 6

USPTO examines (35 USC §131) (p. 109) 6

Responds to application – 6

Inequitable Conduct "Intent to deceive" 7

Patent enforcement: 7



Foreign priority- Paris Convention 35 USC § 119 7

What is patentable? 7

Composition claims: chemical combinations or mixtures of ingredients 7

Process/Method claims: 7

Apparatus Claims: mechanical structure… purpose, elements, connection among the elements sufficiently to clearly define the apparatus 7

Products-by-Process claims: 7

Means-Plus-Function claim elements: 8



III. Disclosure Requirements 9

§ 112 ¶¶ 1–2: required disclosures to be made in the specification of a patent. 9

Question of law or fact? 9

1.Enablement disclosure requirement (§112 ¶1) 9

2)Deposit cases “2 Function Approach”: When microorganism not well known or available to public, patentee must take additional steps to comply with §112, e.g. depositing it in a central depository. Patent application relies upon biological material to be given to a public trust for release to interested people. At time of patent application, no one can get material, not enabled. In re Argoudelis (antibiotic reproduced only w/ a rare microorganism); In re Lundak (necessary cell line culture established in private lab; didn’t deposit until 5 days after filing) 10

4)Dealing w/ new info that came to light after application filed: 10

File new application while patent is still pending—common subject matter & abandon the other case (lose the filing date for things not fully enabled) 10

k)Examples in enablement 11

l)Making the case of lack of enablement 11

m)Utility: 11

n)Undue experimentation 11



Glass didn't provide enough conditions to actually practice it. 11

Scope of art = what disclosed in spec + what would be known to PHOSITA w/out undue experimentation. National Recovery Technologies v. Magnetic Separation Systems 11

2.Best Mode Disclosure Requirement (§112 ¶1) 13

2.Written Description Disclosure Requirement (§112) 16

Enablement not a question of intent. Specification could unintentionally be insufficient. 16

Description v. enablement 16

Description v. definiteness 16

The Role of Expert Declarations in Overcoming § 112 Disclosure Rejections—In re Alton 17

Adding sub-genus [of chemical] count to interference Fujikawa 17

Ipsis verbus not required, just that app provides “adequate direction” that would reasonably lead PHOSITA to the sub-genus of the proposed count. (W loses) 17

Forest/Trees analogy: a bunch of “unmarked trees is no help in finding the trail. Appellants are pointing to trees. We are looking for blaze marks which single out particular trees.” 17

Biotechnology Descriptions 17

3.Definiteness: Particularly Pointing Out & Distinctly Claiming 19

AAI-Prince Definiteness Policy Issues 19



4.Complex Technologies 20

Biotech Inventions Special challenges for patent law: (pp. 295-322) 20

The inventory’s gamble: written description & prophetic claiming of Biotechnology inventions 21

IV. Novelty & Loss of Right 24

Typical case 24

Even if so, item barred/anticipated must still be analyzed under §103 to determine whether it renders the claimed invention obvious. 24

Novelty & loss of Right: Standards of review (questions of law / fact) 24

Prior Art §102(e) 25

§102(g) Secret prior art (can’t abandon, suppress, conceal) 25

Vocab 25

A. Timely Application—Loss of right 26

1. Loss of right: Public Use Bar 26

Burdens of Proof rests on positive claimant. 26

2. Loss of Right: On-Sale Bar 27

Design patents don’t get experimental use exception to on sale bar. Continental Plastic Containers v. Owens Brockway Plastic Products (Fed.Cir.1998) design inventions are reduced to practice as soon as an embodiment is construction. Allowing would allow  in life of patents merely by carrying over the production of the articles of manufacture. 27

Noninforming, Ambiguous Offers e.g. patentee including in a new technology later patented but not describing it as an offer. Carefully distinguish… 28

Seller’s Knowledge objective test: just the sale. No requirement that sales offer specifically identify all the characteristics of an invention offered for sale or that parties recognize the significance of all the characteristics. Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (1999), Scaltach. 28

3.3rd-Party Activity 28



Policy of public use bar & secret use- 29

Pirated inventions 29

B. Novelty: Known or Used, Patented or Described in a Printed Publication 31

1. Date of Invention (Mahurkar) 31

Biotech 31

2. Anticipation: Identity of Invention 32

4.Known or Used" under 102(a) 32

5.Anticipation: "Patented or Described in a Printed Publication" under 102(a) & (b) 32

6.Secret Prior Art – 102(e) 33

§102(e)(1) Publication: 33

Confidentiality §102(e)(2): 33

Provisional patent apps (35 USC §111(b)) under 102e2: 33

7.Priority/Interferences: Secret Prior Art – 102(g) 34

7. Using Foreign Priority for prior art purposes under §§102(e) & (g) 34

Basics of Foreign filing & §102(e) (p. 439-440: provisions of statute) 34

D. Novelty: Derivation – 102(f) 36

Showing derivation 36



D. Priority/ Interferences – § 102(g) 38

1. Introduction 38

2. Priority/ Interferences – § 102(g): Reduction to Practice- Conception & the inventive entity 38

3. Priority/ Interferences – § 102(g): Abandonment, Suppression, & Concealment 39



Factors in determining 40

Diligence 40

Valid excuses for inaction 40



V. Nonobviousness §103: The Graham Framework 41

Background: Want to prevent those skilled in art from patenting that which was JUST ABOUT to happen 41



A. Graham v John Deere 41

B. Nonobviousness: The Scope of the Prior Art 42

pp. 554-597. 42

1. Analogous v. Non-Analogous Art 42

2. §§ 102/103 Prior Art 42

3.Process to determine WHAT is prior art under §103 – 42

C. Content of Prior Art – teaching to or teaching away. 43

1.Dow Chemical Test - 2 part test 43



D. Nonobviousness: Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) 44

1. The question is What is the level of skill of PHOSITA? How much does he know? 44

Workshop Test (Winslow) – kind of art. 44

F. Secondary Considerations (Graham) 45

1. Commercial Success 45

2. Long Felt Unsolved Needs & Failure of Others 46

3. Copying – 46

4. Licensing/Acquiesence 46

F. Biotechnology & Obviousness 47

VI. Utility §101 48

B. Brana two part test of utility 48

Issue whether interference ought to be dissolved because the product the process produced had no utility—a very similar compound had been shown effective at inhibiting tumors in mice. 48



C. Pharmacological products/intermediates – 48

D. Illegal or immoral inventions 48

VII. Statutory Subject Matter §101 49

B. Statutory Subject Matter: The Federal Circuit's Response 49

1.Gottschalk v. Benson (1972 SC) 50



Defenses to Patent Infringement 52

Other” defenses 52



License 52

Counterclaims 52
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə