PA
PATENT L
TENT LAW OUTLINE
AW OUTLINE
NOTE: Standards of ReviewNOTE: Standards of Review Fact – clearly erroneous (if
Fact – clearly erroneous (if decision by judge); deference given to lower courtdecision by judge); deference given to lower court Fact – substantial error (if decision by jury); deference
Fact – substantial error (if decision by jury); deference given to jurygiven to jury Law – de novo; NO deference
Law – de novo; NO deference given to lower courtgiven to lower court I.
I.
OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
[see pgs 6!"6 for good overview# [see pgs 6!"6 for good overview#
II.
II.
PA
PA
TENT CONSTRUCTION
TENT CONSTRUCTION
- §
- §
!
!
A.
A. $ypes of %lai&s' * ++! , $ypes of %lai&s' * ++! , .
. Inde"endent C#ai$Inde"endent C#ai$ – does not refer to any ot-er clai& – does not refer to any ot-er clai& !.
!. %e"endent C#ai$%e"endent C#ai$ – refers – refers to one or &ore clai&s to one or &ore clai&s in t-e patent (e.g. / wind&in t-e patent (e.g. / wind&illill according to %lai& 0)
according to %lai& 0)
a.
a.
1ependent clai&1ependent clai& s"e&ifies so$e feat'res"e&ifies so$e feat're of t-e general invention of t-e general invention clai&ed in t-e referenced independent clai&clai&ed in t-e referenced independent clai&
b.
b.
1ependent clai& is1ependent clai& is narrowernarrower t-an t-e referenced independent clai&; t-an t-e referenced independent clai&; dependent clai& incorporates all li&itations set fort- in referenced clai& dependent clai& incorporates all li&itations set fort- in referenced clai& ( *' +)( *' +)
c.
c.
W(at (a""ens w(en referen&ed inde"endent &#ai$ inva#idated)W(at (a""ens w(en referen&ed inde"endent &#ai$ inva#idated) 1oes 1oes not necessarily &ean t-at dependent clai&s are invalid eit-er since t-ey not necessarily &ean t-at dependent clai&s are invalid eit-er since t-ey are narrower (less li2ely to anticipate or beare narrower (less li2ely to anticipate or be obvious) [pg !#obvious) [pg !#
d.
d.
ConverseConverse3 if independent clai& is valid' dependent clai& &ust be 3 if independent clai& is valid' dependent clai& &ust be validvalid b4c it is narrowerb4c it is narrower *.
*. S&o"e of Listed C#ai$sS&o"e of Listed C#ai$s – independent clai&s are listed in order' staring wit- t-e – independent clai&s are listed in order' staring wit- t-e &ost broad and wor2ing down to t-e least broad
&ost broad and wor2ing down to t-e least broad +.
+. %lai& Language (pg *5)%lai& Language (pg *5) .
. O"en C#ai$: +roadO"en C#ai$: +road " an " an inventioninvention &o$"risin,&o$"risin, ele&ents /' ' and %; clai& ele&ents /' ' and %; clai& covers any e&bodi&ent of invention -aving ele&ents /' ' %' and any additional covers any e&bodi&ent of invention -aving ele&ents /' ' %' and any additional ele&ents
ele&ents !.
!. C#osed C#ai$: Li$itedC#osed C#ai$: Li$ited – an – an inventioninvention &onsistin,&onsistin, of ele&ents /' ' and %; of ele&ents /' ' and %; invention li&ited to just t-ose ele&ents' so product using /' ' %' and 1
invention li&ited to just t-ose ele&ents' so product using /' ' %' and 1 does notdoes not infringe
infringe
*.
*. In-+etweenIn-+etween – an – an inventioninvention &onsistin, essentia## of &onsistin, essentia## of ele&ents /' ' and %; ele&ents /' ' and %; aa product t-at conta
product t-at contained ele&ent /ined ele&ent /' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infrin' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infringe if ele&ent 1ge if ele&ent 1 &ade t-e product essentially different fro&
&ade t-e product essentially different fro& t-e clai&ed inventiont-e clai&ed invention C.
C. 7atent $e7atent $er& – *8 r& – *8 years fro& date of years fro& date of filingfiling .
. E&e"tion: E&e"tion: Provisiona# A""#i&ationsProvisiona# A""#i&ations – * years fro& filing date – * years fro& filing date %.
%. 7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 &ont-s if t-at sa&e&ont-s if t-at sa&e invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires publication after 5 &
publication after 5 &ont-sont-s .
. 7rior to <<<' 7rior to <<<' NO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registeredNO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registered (pg 6*)
(pg 6*) III.
III.
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12
•
• PRESU3PTIONPRESU3PTION – – w-en considering invalidityw-en considering invalidity' burden on ' burden on c-allenger and presu&ption isc-allenger and presu&ption is
t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and
t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and convincing proof convincing proof A.
A. OverviewOverview .
. preli&inary descript preli&inary description of t-e inventioion of t-e invention3 w-at it is' w-at it don3 w-at it is' w-at it does' and w-ates' and w-at inventions ca&e before it
inventions ca&e before it !.
!. 4'id Pro 4'o4'id Pro 4'o – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention wor2s (pg *><)
wor2s (pg *><)
a.
a.
alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy (pro&oting science by(pro&oting science by public disclospublic disclosure)ure) *.
*. Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6 – – enable&ent' written description'enable&ent' written description' definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode
definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode +.
+. =nable&ent ( *' +)=nable&ent ( *' +) ?uestion of
?uestion of #aw#aw (pg !*) (pg !*) .
. @nventor &ust describe @nventor &ust describe invention clearly enoug- so invention clearly enoug- so t-at 7AO:@$/ t-at 7AO:@$/ cancan understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it
understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it (pg *6*)(pg *6*)
a.
a.
7E87E8 " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ needneed 'nd'e e"eri$entation'nd'e e"eri$entation to reproduce clai&ed invention to reproduce clai&ed invention !.
!. 9$' inv9$' inventor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e entor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e art (pgart (pg *5!)
*5!)
a.
a.
=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for so$eso$e e"eri$entatione"eri$entation' suc- as ' suc- as routine screeningroutine screening
*
*
*.
*. In-+etweenIn-+etween – an – an inventioninvention &onsistin, essentia## of &onsistin, essentia## of ele&ents /' ' and %; ele&ents /' ' and %; aa product t-at conta
product t-at contained ele&ent /ined ele&ent /' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infrin' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infringe if ele&ent 1ge if ele&ent 1 &ade t-e product essentially different fro&
&ade t-e product essentially different fro& t-e clai&ed inventiont-e clai&ed invention C.
C. 7atent $e7atent $er& – *8 r& – *8 years fro& date of years fro& date of filingfiling .
. E&e"tion: E&e"tion: Provisiona# A""#i&ationsProvisiona# A""#i&ations – * years fro& filing date – * years fro& filing date %.
%. 7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 &ont-s if t-at sa&e&ont-s if t-at sa&e invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires publication after 5 &
publication after 5 &ont-sont-s .
. 7rior to <<<' 7rior to <<<' NO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registeredNO do&estic patent applications were publis-ed until registered (pg 6*)
(pg 6*) III.
III.
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12
%ISCLOSURE - § ! /C0. 12
•
• PRESU3PTIONPRESU3PTION – – w-en considering invalidityw-en considering invalidity' burden on ' burden on c-allenger and presu&ption isc-allenger and presu&ption is
t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and
t-at patent reg. is valid; N==1 clear and convincing proof convincing proof A.
A. OverviewOverview .
. preli&inary descript preli&inary description of t-e inventioion of t-e invention3 w-at it is' w-at it don3 w-at it is' w-at it does' and w-ates' and w-at inventions ca&e before it
inventions ca&e before it !.
!. 4'id Pro 4'o4'id Pro 4'o – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention – to gain &onopoly' patentee &ust disclose -ow t-e invention wor2s (pg *><)
wor2s (pg *><)
a.
a.
alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy alancing property rig-t (&onopoly) w4 policy (pro&oting science by(pro&oting science by public disclospublic disclosure)ure) *.
*. Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6Contains 1 Parts 'nder § !5 6 – – enable&ent' written description'enable&ent' written description' definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode
definiteness of clai&s' and best &ode +.
+. =nable&ent ( *' +)=nable&ent ( *' +) ?uestion of
?uestion of #aw#aw (pg !*) (pg !*) .
. @nventor &ust describe @nventor &ust describe invention clearly enoug- so invention clearly enoug- so t-at 7AO:@$/ t-at 7AO:@$/ cancan understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it
understand it well enoug- to &a2e and use it (pg *6*)(pg *6*)
a.
a.
7E87E8 " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ " description s-ould be clear enoug- t-at 7AO:@$/ would NO$ needneed 'nd'e e"eri$entation'nd'e e"eri$entation to reproduce clai&ed invention to reproduce clai&ed invention !.
!. 9$' inv9$' inventor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e entor need NO$ disclose in patent w-at is well 2nown in t-e art (pgart (pg *5!)
*5!)
a.
a.
=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for=nable&ent is NO$ precluded by t-e necessity for so$eso$e e"eri$entatione"eri$entation' suc- as ' suc- as routine screeningroutine screening
*
*
*.
*. 9a&tors9a&tors to %eter$ine to %eter$ine W(et(er %is&#os're WoW(et(er %is&#os're Wo'#d Re'ire '#d Re'ire Und'eUnd'e E"eri$entation
E"eri$entation (fact analysis) [ (fact analysis) [WandsWands' pg *5>#' pg *5>#
a.
a.
?uantity of eBperi&entation necessary?uantity of eBperi&entation necessaryb.
b.
/&ount of direction or /&ount of direction or guidance presentedguidance presentedc.
c.
7resence or absence of wor2ing eBa&ples7resence or absence of wor2ing eBa&plesd.
d.
Nature of invention Nature of inventione.
e.
:tate of t-e prior art:tate of t-e prior artf.
f.
Celative s2ill of t-ose in t-e artCelative s2ill of t-ose in t-e artg.
g.
7redictability or unpredictability of art7redictability or unpredictability of art()
()
t-e &ore predictable t-e t-e &ore predictable t-e field of tec-nology' t-e less disclosurefield of tec-nology' t-e less disclosure necessary to enable a broad clai&; :O' broad clai& can be necessary to enable a broad clai&; :O' broad clai& can be enabled by disclosure of single e&bodi&ent w-en result is enabled by disclosure of single e&bodi&ent w-en result is predictable (pg *<8predictable (pg *<8"<)"<)
-.
-.
readt- of clai&sreadt- of clai&s()
()
// &#ai$&#ai$ can be broader t-an can be broader t-an t-e specifict-e specific e$;odi$ente$;odi$ent disclosed disclosed in specification (in specification ( GentryGentry' pg !5)' 9$ clai& ' pg !5)' 9$ clai& is necessarilyis necessarily li&ited by
li&ited by "rior art"rior art and specific and specific written des&ri"tionwritten des&ri"tion 1.
1. Starin, 3ateria#sStarin, 3ateria#s – if – if invention is &ade of &aterials (staring &aterials) notinvention is &ade of &aterials (staring &aterials) not 2nown in t-e art' inventor &ust set fort- -ow
2nown in t-e art' inventor &ust set fort- -ow to &a2e t-e starting &aterials toto &a2e t-e starting &aterials to co&ply w4 enable&ent reuire&ent (
co&ply w4 enable&ent reuire&ent (WandsWands' pg *55)' pg *55) <.
<. %e"osit%e"osit – 7$O -as depository for strains of – 7$O -as depository for strains of &icroorganis&&icroorganis&s' w-ic- is necessarys' w-ic- is necessary for so&e patent appls to &eet enable&ent reuire&en
for so&e patent appls to &eet enable&ent reuire&en =.
=. 7olicy – teac- 7olicy – teac- 7AO:@$/ 7AO:@$/ -ow to do -ow to do it; alerts public about li&its of it; alerts public about li&its of inventioninvention C.
C. Dritten 1escription (ED1) ( Dritten 1escription (ED1) ( *' +)*' +) uestion of
uestion of fa&tfa&t' loo2 to eBpert witnesses (pg !)' loo2 to eBpert witnesses (pg !) >REAT %E+ATE
>REAT %E+ATE – &ost sc-olars believe – &ost sc-olars believe W% is red'ndant w? ena;#e$entW% is red'ndant w? ena;#e$ent; D1; D1 is a -eig-tened standard t-at can be used
is a -eig-tened standard t-at can be used to invalidate &any patents' especiallyto invalidate &any patents' especially tec-nological patents t-at describe invention in functional ter&s (
tec-nological patents t-at describe invention in functional ter&s ( Rochester Rochester appendiB appendiB denying
denying en bancen banc -earing) -earing) .
. T(eorT(eor – teac-ing function t-at gives public invention in eBc-ange for – teac-ing function t-at gives public invention in eBc-ange for &onopoly (
&onopoly ( Rochester Rochester ' -andout' pg <**)' -andout' pg <**)
!
!
a.
a.
0istori&a#0istori&a# – D1 was very i – D1 was very i&portant initially b4c law did not call for&portant initially b4c law did not call for Eclai&sEclai&s
b.
b.
NOD NOD'' +road P'r"ose+road P'r"ose – D1 is not &erely to describe invention 9$ to – D1 is not &erely to describe invention 9$ to convey w4 reasonable clarity to 7AO:@$/convey w4 reasonable clarity to 7AO:@$/s t-at as of s t-at as of patent filing date'patent filing date' invention was in inventorGs possession (pg !8H)
invention was in inventorGs possession (pg !8H)
()
()
%an add clai&s after filing' %an add clai&s after filing' 9$ can NO$ c-ange D1 after9$ can NO$ c-ange D1 after filing [nofiling [no new $atternew $atter in disclosure' !*(a)#; :O D1 prevents in disclosure' !*(a)#; :O D1 prevents inventors fro& adding nu&erous clai&s since t-ose clai&s &ay inventors fro& adding nu&erous clai&s since t-ose clai&s &ay not be adeuately Edescribed in t-e D1
not be adeuately Edescribed in t-e D1
c.
c.
$ypically' D1 coupled w4$ypically' D1 coupled w4 "riorit iss'es"riorit iss'es ( (§ !@§ !@) (D1 in senior) (D1 in senior application is not sufficient to coverapplication is not sufficient to cover clai&s in junior application)' OCclai&s in junior application)' OC w-et-er
w-et-er new $atterBnew $atterB was introduced into was introduced into patent (forbidden underpatent (forbidden under §§ *!
*!)) !.
!. Para##e#s and Li$its C#ai$sPara##e#s and Li$its C#ai$s " inventor &ust -ig-lig-t or describe w-at s-e " inventor &ust -ig-lig-t or describe w-at s-e clai&s' and clai& w-at s-e -ig-lig-ts (pg *6*)
clai&s' and clai& w-at s-e -ig-lig-ts (pg *6*)
a.
a.
7E87E8 – analysis evidencing patent -as D13 () does D1 provide any – analysis evidencing patent -as D13 () does D1 provide any guidance to steer t-e 7AO:@$/ on -ow to &a2e ele&ents listed in t-e 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 clai& OC (*) t-at t-e 7AO:@$/ would already 2now' at t-e ti&e of filing' -ow to &a2e t-e ele&entsI (filing' -ow to &a2e t-e ele&entsI ( Rochester Rochester ' -andout' pg <*<)' -andout' pg <*<)
()
()
generic words typically do not &eet D1 reuire&ent' unlessgeneric words typically do not &eet D1 reuire&ent' unless t-ey are co&&on words to 7AO:@$/; instead &ustt-ey are co&&on words to 7AO:@$/; instead &ust s"e&ifi&a##s"e&ifi&a## des&ri;e
des&ri;e t-e invention OC give t-e invention OC give ran,e of "ro"ertiesran,e of "ro"erties w-en w-en invention covers nu&erous e&bodi&ents
invention covers nu&erous e&bodi&ents
b.
b.
@nventor need NO$ describe &ore t-an one@nventor need NO$ describe &ore t-an one e$;odi$ente$;odi$ent of a broad of a broad clai& to adeuately support t-at clai& (pg !H); AOD=J=Cclai& to adeuately support t-at clai& (pg !H); AOD=J=C ri,(t tori,(t to e&#'de
e&#'de &ay be li&ited by &ay be li&ited by narrownarrow written des&ri"tionwritten des&ri"tion (disclosure); e.g. (disclosure); e.g. &ounted console in sofa in
&ounted console in sofa in GentryGentry
c.
c.
@nventor is entitled to draft clai&s as broad as @nventor is entitled to draft clai&s as broad as prior art and D1 willprior art and D1 will allow (allow (GentryGentry' pg !5); 9$ D1 can ' pg !5); 9$ D1 can be broader t-an clai&s b4c it be broader t-an clai&s b4c it &ay&ay contain t-ings t-at were later rejected by 7$O
contain t-ings t-at were later rejected by 7$O
()
()
Pioneerin, InventionPioneerin, Invention " %lai& can state Eall e&bodi&ents of a " %lai& can state Eall e&bodi&ents of a particular inventioparticular invention if t-ey enable all t-e e&n if t-ey enable all t-e e&bodi&ents eBistingbodi&ents eBisting at ti&e of
at ti&e of application (typicallyapplication (typically' very ' very few e&bodi&ents sincefew e&bodi&ents since pioneering inven
pioneering invention); t-is Eall broad tion); t-is Eall broad clai& would t-en coverclai& would t-en cover i&prove&ents discovered in future
i&prove&ents discovered in future
d.
d.
9$ " after9$ " after GentryGentry' to invalidate based on written description' court' to invalidate based on written description' court reuiredreuired &#ear or 'na$;i,'o's #an,'a,e&#ear or 'na$;i,'o's #an,'a,e in description t-at calls for in description t-at calls for narrower clai& (pg !<)
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:@$/ to learn' it is teac-ing &ec-anis& ( Rochester ' -andout' pg <*!)
<. Ot(er Notes
a.
%rawin,s alone can &eet written description reuire&ent ( Vas-Cath' pg !8H)' but t-e drawings &ust effectively describe invention in t-e eyes of 7AO:@$/ (pg !8)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:@$/ can discern boundaries of patent (pg *6*)
a.
@nventor &ust state clearly w-at is clai&ed and w-at is left free to public use!. Po#i& – s-apes future conduct of persons ot-er t-an inventor by insisting t-at t-ey receive notice of scope of patented device (pg !8H)
E. est Kode ( *' +)
?uestion of fa&t (pg !>)
. S';e&tive %raftin, ; Inventor – of all e&bodi&ents enco&passed in clai&s' inventor &ust state w-ic- one' if any' -e believes is &ost effective at ti&e of filing (pg *6!; Randomex dissent' pg !8)
a.
NO reuire&ent t-at inventor "oint o't w-ic- listed e&bodi&ent does -e consider t-e best &ode; inventor only reuired to list best &ode as one of t-e e&bodi&ents ( Randomex' pg !!<)!. Stri&ter t(an Ena;#e$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&s1. @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
IV.
NOVELT8 AN% %ERIVATION - § @! /C0. <2
•+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$ation dis&#osed in a "re-&riti&a# date referen&es'ffi&ient to render a""#i&antFs invention non-nove#)
/nticipation is a uestion of fa&t' deference to lower court
a.
/nticipation reuires a## of t-e re#evant infor$ation to be disclosed in a sin,e reference (pg !6>)' i.e. t-e reference discloses t-e identicalinvention
[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 artreference is nevert-eless necessarily present in reference /N1 would be so recogniMed by 7AO:@$/
(i)
%ourt &ust view fro& eyes of 7AO:@$/; would 7AO:@$/ -ave appreciated t-e in-erent features of prior artI(b)
@n-erency can NO$ be establis-ed by &ere probabilities or possibilities ( Robertson' pg !6<)Create &(art to &o$"are "atent a""#Fs &#ai$ e#e$ents wit( "rior art referen&e
c.
7E83 / prior art reference can NO$ anticipate an invention unless t-e referen&e is ena;#in, (eit-er patent or publication) [pg !58#()
NO$=3 t-e enabling standard for prior art under § @! iswatered down' prior art does NO$ 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$' if reference na&es ele&ents but t-en states t-ataut-or4inventor was unsuccessful at creating invention' t-en NO anticipation (Wiggins' pg !5H)
(!)
7roduct itself can anticipate' even t-ose products t-at would not infor& public about -ow to &a2e t-e& (overlaps w4 Epublic use in 8*(b))d.
7E8: Li$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 ofinvention
(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 inti&e' anticipates if earlier t-an t-e date of invention) [pg !H#
()
NO$=3 anticipation does NO$ apply to infringe&ent by 1O=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()
AOD=J=C a new species (i&prove&ent) can be patented if t-e new species is not obvious under 8! (pg !<)C. 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' OCb.
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 onnot public in National Tractor Pllers (EN$7)' pg 88)
()
NO$ 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)c.
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 soviewed (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 2nown1. 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 #()
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 itc.
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<. Patented Anw(ere (also applies to 8*(b) below)
a.
/ll 9.:. patents ualify to anticipateb.
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$es' pg H#; b4c disclosure would euate w-at is 2nown or used and t-at is restricted to 9.:.(a)
AOD=J=C' so&e utility &odels -ave been treated as publications' suc- t-at clai&s and disclosure couldanticipate
(*)
%esi,n Re,istrations " considered Epatents b4c it conveys eBclusive rig-t (pg 5)(!)
Foreign patents &ust be accessible to public' but indeBing' cataloging' etc. are not reuired (pg <)%. 1isclosures in =arlier Filed /pplications [ 8*(e)# (pg *H)
. Kerely disclosing t-e invention ( i.e. not clai&ing but &erely describing)' is enoug- for anticipation and bar clai& in subseuent application (pg *>)
a.
Katerial disclosed but not clai&ed in patent is available as prior art ONL8 under 8*(e); NO interference under 8*(g)' b4c interference is available only for overlap in &#ai$sb.
: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-edb.
9$' w-en it publis-es it can be cited under 8*(e)1. Provisiona# A""#i&ations – under 8*(e)' it appears t-at 7$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&
E. 1erivation [ 8*(f)# – patentee invented subject &atter of patent' it was not derived or stolen fro& anot-er [not part of Enovelty' but related#
. 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 $isoinder of inventors (pg !<) *. s-op rig-t rule
9. =stablis-ing 1ate of @nvention for 7riority [ 8*(g)# (pg >8)
• =stablis-es priority for interference and in general' but also is t-e general rule for
establis-ing date of invention for ot-er sections of 8* . 8*(g) is Narrow
a.
For priority' reuires &on&e"tion and red'&tion to "ra&ti&e (actual or constructive)b.
/pplies on# w-en t-e inventions clai&ed are t-e sa$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 $est for 7riority' 8*(g)(!) [pg "*#
a.
=3 First to reduce to practice -as priority (e.g. build a wor2ing &odel)()
D-at if parties reduce on sa&e dayI 1efault is first to conceive(*)
D-at if parties file on sa&e day and can NO$ prove conception or reduction to practiceI Neit-er gets patent ( %assman' pg >>)b.
Filing valid patent application constitutes a Econstructive reduction to practice()
NO$=3 application K9:$ be enabling (per *); unless filing a provisional application under c.
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-roug-to /Gs own reduction t-roug-to practice (eit-er actual or constructive) (seeChristie $. 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 diligenced.
/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)
$-is wor2s against ot-ers 2eeping invention as a trade secret(*)
@ntent – &ust s-ow intent to conceal or suppress(a)
9NL=::' t-e ti&e period is unreasonable' t-en can infer (no need to s-ow intent) suppression' conceal&ent' or abandon&ent (pg 68)(!)
Cebut @nference – delay was to perfect invention (testing and refine&ent); &ust point to t-e clai& t-at you were perfecting <. 7atent Office Cule ! – allows applicant to E antedate or Eswear ;e(ind dateof prior art
a.
Oat- or declaration to establis- date of invention prior to t-e referenced publication (reject under 8*(a)) or appl4reg. (8*(e))b.
%an NO$ 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 rejectionsc.
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$=3 in an interference' applications were &o-"endin, (e.g. junior filed before senior passed to reg)' so to prove priority' junior need to only s-ow
"re"onderan&e of eviden&e (no clear and convincing for presu&ption since senior invention -ad not yet passed to reg w-en junior was filed) (pg 6) J. Red'&tion to Pra&ti&e – occurs w-en an inventor or -is agent 2now t-at t-e
invention will wor2 for its intended purpose (pg ><*)
V.
STATUTOR8 +ARS /LOSS O9 RI>0T TO PATENT2 - § @! /C0. <2
• Pre&#'de or ;ar "atent5 even if a""#i&ant is t(e first inventor of &#ai$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.
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 atproduct' selling product does not create public use for ot(er "arties (Gore' Pennoc# ' pg 6!")
b.
Inventor Se&ret Use " 9$' sa&e as above' would create public use against t-at partyGs patent application()
7olicy " in 2eeping w4 policy of encouraging inventor to file early [Gore' pg 6!#(*)
:o&e case treats trade secret use as abandon&ent (w-ic- does not create a public use bar for ot-er parties)' w-ile ot-ers treat it as public use (pg 6!"!*)<. Pro&ess v. Prod'&t – if patent on process' and process 2ept secret' t-en selling product by process constitutes a public use ONL if public could figure out process by eBa&ining product
=. 7olicies e-ind 8*(b) [pg 68#
a.
1iscourage re&oval fro& public do&ain of inventions t-at public reasonably believes are freely availableb.
Favoring pro&pt and widespread disclosure of inventionsc.
/llow inventor reasonable a&ount of ti&e following sales activity to deter&ine t-e "otentia# e&ono$i& va#'e of a "atentd.
7ro-ibit inventor fro& co&&ercially eBploiting invention for a period greater t-an t-e prescribed statutory ti&e (*8 years)J. arred if invention' more than &' months (rior to date of application [,ra&e "eriod#' was3
a.
7atented or described in publication anw(ere' OCb.
@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$$en&es based on public use OC on sale use' w(i&(ever is ear#iestb.
9$' if t-e invention is publis-ed and t-e inventor fails to file application prior to t-e * &ont- deadline' patent rig-t is lostc.
encourages filing w4in ! $ont(s of invention . %OK7/C= to Novelty (8*(a))a.
Novelty loo2s at date prior to invention' rat-er t-an Edate of applicationb.
@nventor can NO$ anticipate -i&self under 8*(a)' but can create prior art under 8*(b)@. On-Sa#e +ar"" two"part test (bot- are reuired); 1=:7@$= t-is test' not a
&ec-anical rule but rat-er depends on t-e totality of t-e circu&stances [ Pfaff ' pg >H' >5*#
a.
9irst' product &ust be t-e subject of a &o$$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 barb.
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$7 " invention does NO$ -ave to be reduced topractice 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*)
c.
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& Usea.
:-owing @nvention to Friends , =&ployees – NO public use if inventor $aintains &ontro# and t-ose viewing 2now to Hee" it a se&ret (eit-er eBpressly or i&plicitly) [ !oleclon' pg >6!">6#()
Loo2 for eBplicit or i&plicit confidentiality agree&ent(*)
@n contrast to !oleclon' t-e corset springs in *gbert ' w-ic- was given to ot-ers for free and unrestrictedb.
7ublic use can be caused by t-e inventor OC t(ird "art 'nre#ated or 'nHnown to inventor' s-owing invention to public ( +axter ' pg 685)()
:o' even if t-e inventor is 2eeping t-e invention secret (notpublic)' an un2nown person &ay s-ow -is version of invention in public' w-ic- causes t-e inventorGs cloc2 to run too;
encourages inventors to file uic2ly; 9$
(*)
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)c.
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$enta# Use %o&trine – perfecting or co&pleting an invention to t-e point of deter&ining t-at it will wor2 for its intended purpose
a.
%efense for Inventor – ne,ates finding of public use' if use &erely eBperi&ental and controlled by inventor (pg >55)()
@nventor &ust retain control during t-e eBperi&ental period; invention can NO$ 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 ><<)b.
E"eri$enta# Sa#es " do not trigger t-e bar (e.g. eBperi&ental lig-ting pole built on -ig-way; Dyo&ing later paid for t-e pole after it survivedt-e winter; not a co&&ercial sale' D was told it was eBperi&ental and confidential) [ !an$ille' pg ><#
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 evaluationC. /bandon&ent [8*(c)#
. 7arty":pecific :tatutory ar – triggered ONL by applicant (pg 6) !. $wo Days to /bandon
a.
7ublicly and eBpressly renouncing rig-ts to patent; abandon&ent ta2es effect i&&ediately (effectively waves any re&aining grace period granted by 8*(b))b.
Trade Se&ret – in 2eeping wit- 8*(b)' using invention in secret after * &ont-s fro& creation effectively a;andons patent rig-ts (see Pennoc# ' Gore' KetalliMing' Kacbet-"=vans' pg 6!)()
/lternative t-eory is t-at trade secret does not constituteabandon&ent but rat-er public use' w-ic- would bar ot-ers fro& filing for sa&e invention
%. [8*(d)#
. 7arty":pecific :tatutory ar – triggered only by applicant
VI.
NONO+VIOUSNESS /C0. =2
• Not codified until <>*' 8!; prior to <>*' patent only reuired novelty and utility • roader test t-an novelty test under 8*
• Overall' obviousness is uestion of #aw' no deference to lower court (pg H5); 9$
review lower courtGs findings on Graham factors as uestion of fa&t' loo2 for clear error ( +ro,n Williamson)
A. 7olicy
. 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$ents for Patent – pro&oting useful arts and science (Graham' pg 6H*)
a.
Patent Power is 4'a#ified A't(orit – Fra&ers wanted to end custo& by %rown of awarding certain parties &onopolies on goods andbusinesses t-at -ad long been enjoyed by public
b.
%ongress can NO$ enlarge patent &onopoly w4out regard to innovation5 advan&e$ent5 or so&ia# ;enefitc.
%ongress can NO$ 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 availabled.
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()
/lso prevents inventor fro& getting anot-er patent on so&e slig-t variation' eBtending -is &onopolye.
%ourts and 7$O' in applying %ongressG standards' &ust ad-ere to t-ese %onstitutional reuire&entsf.
T(o$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 Einventors s-ouldget 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.
:o' Aotc-2iss reuires co&parison between patentGs subject &atter and bac2ground s2ill of t-e calling1. >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 (pg588)
(*)
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 createdb.
1ifferences between t-e prior art and t-e clai&s at issue are to be ascertained()
Note w-en 7 argues advantages of invention at trial' but advantages are not in t-e specification; weig-s towards nonobvious (pg 65>)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()
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 ofco&panyGs success' etc.)' t-en does NO$ weig- for nonobvious
e.
Long felt but unsolved needsf.
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 E. O#d E#e$ents Co$;ined – a device t-at co&bines old ele&ents is not necessarilyobvious; &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.
=vidence of teac-ing or &otivation K9:$ be &#ear and "arti&'#ar; broad conclusory state&ents re3 teac-ing of &ultiple references no
enoug- b.
PTO (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!") 0. 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 (<H6) again cited t-e )P synergistic approac-' w-ic- appears to again raise t-e bar for patentability
I. 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
approarc-!. S',,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()
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)
b.
t-at suggestion clai&s a reasona;#e e"e&tation t-at suc- co&bination would be successful (pg H>)()
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-ic-too 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#
VII.
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$ent5and
fi#e wra""er; -elp eBplain t-e clai&s; -elps define scope and
&eaning of clai&s
!. :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 waand 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=C. >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$a at 5)
!. A;stra&t – state&ent in abstract &ay operate as a clear eBpression of &anifest eBclusion' but it &ust be direct or clear since t-e /bstract is typically a ,enera# state$entabout 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 treatisesb.
Care circu&stances w-ere court is stuc2 – eBpert testi&ony' articles' and inventor testi&onyc.
/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
. 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 followb.
@n affir&ing !ar#man (uestion of law)' Cyborg (<<5) furt-erestablis-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 lawE. 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$"etin, Inter"retive Canons t(at Create S"#it
a.
%lai&s are to be interpreted in lig-t of specification and prosecution -istory()
conteBtual reading; preserve function of clai& as ulti&ate state&ent of patent scope (pg !!)b.
%lai&s &ay not be &odified beyond t-eir actual language by reference to t-e specification or prosecution -istory()
Keaning of clai& language can NO$ be altered by i$"ortin, in c-anges fro& outside t-e clai&s!. Ot(er Canons
a.
D-en different clai&s of a patent use sa&e language' give t-at language t-e sa&e effect in eac- clai&()
%onversely – w-en si&ilar but different ter&s are used' t-ey -ave different &eaningsb.
/ll ter&s in clai& are presu&ed to -ave &eaning in clai& (pseudo" canon) ( 0nno$a at <)()
:-ould not interpret clai& in a way t-at &a2es ter& superfluous *. A""roa&(es to Tension in Canons7rocedural 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
