8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

1/24

y ANTICIPATIONy Rules:35 U.S.C.A102

y A Personshall beentitledtoa patentunless:y (a)theinvention was knownorused by othersinthis country, orpatentedordescribedina printed

publicationinthisorforeign country, beforetheinventionthereof by theapplicant forpatent, or

y (b)theinventionwas patentedordescribedina printed publicationinthisora foreign country orinpublic useoronsaleinthis country, morethanone yearpriortothedateoftheapplication forpatent

inthe United Sates, ory (c)hehasabandonedtheinvention, ory (d)theinventionwas first patentedorcausedto be patented, orwasthesubjectofaninventions

certificate, by theapplicantorhislegalrepresentativesorassignsina foreign country priortothedate

oftheapplication forpatentinthis country onanapplication forpatentorinventions certificate field

morethantwelve months beforethe filingoftheapplicationinthe United States, or

y Section 102 requires whetherany oneofthereferences fully anticipatea claim. Eachand every element ofthe claimedinvention must bedisclosedinasingle, enablingreference.

y Titanium Metals v. Bannery When, as by arecitationofrangesorotherwise, a claim coversseveral compositions, the claim is

'anticipated' ifoneofthem isinthe priorart.

y "theevery element"ruleappliesy Schering v. Geneva

y A patentisinvalid foranticipationifasingle priorartreferencediscloseseachandevery limitationoftheclaim invention. Moreover, a priorartreference may anticipatewithoutdisclosinga feature ofthe claimed

inventionifthatmissingcharacteristicisnecessarily present or inherent, inthesingleanticipate

reference. Ifthesingle claim isnot foundinthesingle priorart, thereisnotanticipation.

y Notrequireaskilledartisantorecognizetheinherent characteristic inthe priorartthatanticipatestheclaimedinvention.

y Cannotobtaina patentin circumstanceswhere members ofthe publichave already benefited from theinvention, evenifthey dontknow precisely howthat benefitwasconferred. - publicdomain

y ContinentalCany Patenteedevelopeda method formakinghollow ribsatthe bottom ofa bottley There wasanexisting patent forcreating plastic ribsatthe bottom of bottles(accusedinfringersexpert)

y Didn'tsay thattheribsarehollowy Everyoneinthe field knew thatif you madetheribsthey would behollow

y Decidedit wasnotinherent becauseitturnsitouttheribsarenotalwayshollowy Inherency issue

y Inherency is basedonthetruthorwhathappensin fact, evena priorartdidnotshow itinitsreference.Inherency just canhappenthere.

y Whereareferencedoesnotsay any thingaboutit, however, any ordinary skilled person can findthatitshould bethereoriginally, because itistheresultofthe method mentioned by the prior reference.

y the personofordinary skilled can figureitout whenreadingthereference - inherencyy NOVELTY: STATUTORY BARS

y Applicant Activities -- 102(b)(b)theinvention was patentedordescribedina printed publicationinthisora foreign country

orin public useoronsale(has gone to public domain)inthis country, morethanone year

priortothedateoftheapplication forpatentinthe United States.

y The key words forstatutory barsarethat"in public use ofon-sale in this country, more than one year prior tothe filing date."

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

2/24

Under35 U.S.C. 102 (b), inventors risk loss oftheir exclusive right ifthey attempt to adopt a

waiting strategy.

y The criticaldate:Thisisthe pointintimeone yearbeforethe filingdate. Any statutorily barredactivities, evenaday beforethat criticaldate, defeatsthe patent.

y Public UseyFeasibleornot forthe public isnotanindispensablerequirement for"public use"yEgbert v. Lippman

y Oneissueisthattheinventionwasin public use priortothe patent being filed.y Public Use:

y Doesnothaveto beinview ofthe public, just beusedinthe publicy Doesnotdependonthenumberof people who know. One person can beenoughy Numberof patenteditemsusedin public doesnt matter

y Oneitem usedin public isenoughy Greaternumbersusedstrengthenstheargumentthough

y The factthatthe metal corset bands weregiventothe person withnospecific instructions meansitwas public use.--- Giving/selling a device to another without limitation can be seen as public use

y Whenisa use a Public use?Party Informinguse Non-informinguse Secretuse

Applicant Yes Yes Yes

Third Party Yes Yes No

y Court mentionsthattherearesomeinventionsthatareused butnotseen by the public eye. The publicuseeventtriggersthegrace periodofone year.

y MetallizingEnggCo. v. Kenyon Bearing & Autoy The processhad been keptsecret. Itisthe productsofthesecretthathad comeout. Theissue wasthatsincethishad been keptsecret, thenisthatastatutory bar?

y Secret use = asort of public use, ifitisused commercially andextendsthe marketadvantagethatisgained from a patent.

y Commercial use evenifsecret, evenifhave purpose of experiment (not primarily) will bar thepatent (more than one year.).

y Experimental Usey Solongashedoesnotvoluntarily allow othersto makeitanduseit, andsolongasitisnotonsale forgeneraluse, andaninventorkeepstheinventionunderhisown controlanddoesnotlosehistitletoa patent.

y Notethattheexperimentaluseexceptiondoesnotinclude markettestingwheretheinventorisattemptingtogauge consumerdemand forhis claimedinvention. Actually the purposeofsuchactivitiesis commercial

exploitationandnotexperimentation.

yCity ofElizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavementy Courtsaysthisisanexperimentaluseandisanexceptiontothe public use bar. Experimentalusestillgoodlaw butvery strictly applied by the courts. Ithasto be clear intentto experiment,andcannot

be exploitedcommercially.

y Public experimentationisnot public usey Public useorsale mustoccur foritto be public use. Wasnot forcommercial benefitinthis case.

Must be wholly experimental withno commercial benefit

y On SaleyTheon-sale barapplies whentwo conditionsaresatisfied beforethe criticaldate:

y First, the product must bethesubjectofa commercialofferforsale, ANDy Second, theinventionmust beready forpatenting, which may bedemonstrated by:

y (1) proofofreductionto practice beforethe criticaldate, OR

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

3/24

y (2) proofthat priortothe criticaldatetheinventorhad prepareddrawingsorotherdescriptionsoftheinventionthat weresufficiently specific toenablea personskilledintheartto practice

theinvention.

yPfaffv. Wells Electronicsy Designeda computerchip socketinNovember1980. Sentdetaileddrawingstoa manufacturerin

February orMarchof 1981. Detailed plansin March 1981 whichareshowntoTI. TI ordersalarge

numberonApril 8, orderis fulfilledin July 1981. Filed forpatentinApril 19, 1982. Criticaldate

underthelaw wastherefore April 19, 1981.

y Patentisinvalid becausetheinventionhad beenonsale formorethanone yearinthis country beforehe filedhis patentapplication.

y Itisa conditionuponaninventorsrighttoa patentthatheshallnotexploithisdiscoverycompetitively afteritisready forpatenting;hemust contenthimself witheithersecrecy, orlegal

monopoly.

y Aninventorloseshisrighttoa patentifhe putshisinventioninto public use before filinga patentapplication. Hisvoluntary actoracquiescenceinthe public saleanduseisanabandonmentofhis

right. Nevertheless, aninventorwhoseeksto perfecthisdiscovery may conductextensivetesting

(keep it from the market) withoutlosinghisrighttoobtaina patent forhisinvention - evenifsuch

testingoccursinthe public eye(actually nobody actually knows whathappens).

y THIRD PARTY ACTIVITIESy Generally, under the newAIA, 3rd party activitiescould bar the inventor's patent rightifthe activitiesare

notsecret use. In other words, 3rd party public use isa bar immediately.

y Informingusesy In"public"use, adequately informedthe public ofthe presenceinthe public domainoftheinventiony ElectricStorage Battery v. Shimadzu

y Shimadzudidnotdisclosetoanyonein U.S beforeheapplied forthe patent. The petitioner, withoutknowledgeof Shimadzusinventions, begantousethe machineinvolvingthe knowledgeand method.

Ifthe third party secret usesthe invention,itisnotthe bar.

y Non-informing Usesy Thereisno requirementthatasalesofferspecifically identify allthe characteristicsofaninventionoffered

forsaleorthatthe partiesrecognizethesignificanceofallofthese characteristicsatthetimeoftheoffer. If

a productthatisoffered forsaleinherently possesseseachofthelimitationsofthe claims, thentheinvention

isonsale, no matterwhetherornotthe partiestothetransactionrecognizethatthe product possessesthe

claimed characteristics.

y Abbott v. Genevay Patentisinvalid becauseit wassold priorto patentingeventhoughthey didn't really knowthat

they were producingthe substance

y Abbott wasin bestsituationtounderstandthe propertiesofits chemicalsy On-sale barprohibitsthe withdrawalof productsthatarealready onsaley

Proofof conception wasnotrequired, innocently orfraudulently doesnot mattery Third Party Secret Uses

y Trade Secret therisktothetradesecretowneristhatalthough yourinventionissecret, someoneelse maytakeand patentit.

y Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Incy Any kindofuseoftheapplicantisa barforthatapplicant'sapplication forpatent.y However, Thethird party secretuseisnota barforthedisclose patenty Thesecretagreementaboutthe machine

y Thetape can besold butthe process cannot beopenedtoany one

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

4/24

y Court finds forGore, becausethe first people keep theinventionsecretanddidnot makeitto bepublic. The first person whoinventedrejectedthe patentinthis way.

y (c) He hasabandonedthe invention, ory Abandonmentoftheinventionshouldnot bereadliterally.y Rarely rely uponabandonmentunder102(c)asa basis fordefeatinga patentright. Ifthe conditionsof

(b)are fulfilled ,thenthelaw deemstheinventortohaveabandonedtherighttoobtain patent

protection.

y (d)theinventionwas first patentedorcausedto be patented, orwasthesubjectofaninventions certificate,by theapplicantorhislegalrepresentativesorassignsina foreign country priortothedateoftheapplicationforpatentinthis country onanapplication forpatentorinventions certificate field morethantwelve

months beforethe filingoftheapplicationinthe United States, or

y 1. filesa foreign patentapplicationmorethan 12months before filingthe U.S. applicationy 2. patentissued priortothe U.S. filingdate

y Both requirements must be metto bartheissuanceofthe U.S. patenty Forces promptnessin filinganddisclosinginformationy Security reasons fileinhome country first.

y After filing 6 monthslaterassumed permissionto filein foreign countriesy Orrequestofspecific permission.

y Provisional patentapplicationy If yourclienthasanimpendingevent, then you can filea provisionalapplication, which justneedone claimandsometechniquedisclosure. Then you can filearegularapplicationwithinone yearandthe claim dateis

thedate you filethe provisionalapplication.

y Filinga provisional patentapplication - only needsometechnicalinventionandthen filingaregularapplication within 1 year

y File beforethe wholeinventiony Itisatechnicaldisclosurey Itisopenedtoallaroundthe world

y Within one year,can file the perfectedinventionapplication,anddate will clockbackto the originaldate

y The effective filingdate for anon-provisional applicationisthe date thatthe provisionalapplicationwas filed,thisiscalledthe priority date.

y It must be filedwithin one year ofthe provisional applicationto claim priority.y Novelty: Prior Invention

y Priorinventionundernew 102 (a)y Basically itisthe firstto filerule, exceptthe firstto publicly disclose, derivation, abandonment.y New 102 (a)(1):(PriorArt)

y Five categoriesof PriorArt:y 1) Patented,y

2) printed publication,y 3) public use,y 4)onsale,y 5)otherwiseavailabletothe public

y Nogeographic restrictionsy New 102 (a)(2):Exceptions

y Disclosureexceptiony People whogets firstto fileor firstto publishy Alwaysthe first filerwinsexceptthesecond fileris firstto publicly disclose

y Derivationexception

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

5/24

y Ifthe first filerobtainedtheinventioneitherdirectly orindirectly from thesecond filerthenthesecond filercan betheone whogetsthe patent

y Abandonmentexceptiony Requiresanaffirmativeact.

1. Filinganapplicationandnot finishingthe process, afternotice, abandoned2. Expressabandonment conveyedtothe PTO.3. Public disparagementoftheinvention

y Revive1. Unintentional2. Unavoidable

y New 102 (b)Grace period:theonly difference betweenold 102 andnew 102 isthethird party publicuseonsale

y 1 yeargrace periodonly appliestoapplicantsownuse/disclosure.y Thereisno more third party public use grace period

y A third party secretuseisnot priorartunder102(a)y Woodcock v. Parker

y D claimsheusethe machine by agoodderivativetitle from the firstandoriginalinventor.y The firstinventorisentitledtothe benefitofhisinventionifheobtainsa patentandreduceitto practice, thesecondinventorcannotoustthe firstinventorofhisright by obtaininga patent.

y Gillman v. Stemy Gillmanhada patentona puffing machine which was filedin 1931. Haas(athird party)hadinventedasimilarmachinein 1929. Haas keptitastrictsecretandenjoinedhisemployeesintosecrecy.

y Secretusesarenot public uses whichdonot comprise priorartunder102 (a)y A secretinventorisnota firstinventor. To bea firstandoriginalinventor, theinventormust makehisresults public. Aninventorwho concealstheirinventionwhileoperatingit commercially isnotthe first

inventorifanothermadethe first public use.

y Alexander Miburn v. Davis-Bournonville Co.(classic 102(e)situation)y Delaysofthe USPTOshouldnotaffect whogetsthe patenty Clifford wasthe firstinventor, itdoesnot matterthathedidnot claim it, hestilldisclosedit. Cliffordhadtakenstepsthat would makeit public assoonasthe PatentOfficedidits work.

y A descriptionthat would bara patentif printedina periodicalorinanissued patentisequally effectiveinanapplicationso farasreductionto practicegoes.

y A patentdisclosinganinventionanticipates from thedateof filingnotthedateofissuey A claim isnotnecessary toreduceaninventionto practice

y 102 eMakesany patentapplication priorarteffectivetheday itis filedatthe USPTO.y This preventsasecondinventor from claiminganinventionthathas beendescribed, butnotclaimedina

previousapplication.

y Alsoany publicationwhichdescribesthe claimedinventionis priorart.y

UTILITYy to establish utility:

y (1) a PHOSITA couldknowy (2) the utility isspecific,substantial, practical andcredible

y 101 Invention patentabley Whoeverinventsordiscoversany new anduseful process, machine, manufacture, orcompositionof matter,orany new andusefulimprovementthereof, may obtaina patenttherefor, subjecttothe conditionsand

requirementsofthistitle.

y 112 (a)Thespecificationshall conclude withoneormore claimsparticularly pointingoutanddistinctly claimingthesubject matterwhichtheinventorora jointinventorregardsastheinvention.

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

6/24

y Theapplicantshoulddisclosehow tousetheinventioninthedescriptionorothers may suspectthattheapplicanthasscantability toelaborateonthisuseinthe patentinstrumentitself.

y New 3-prongtesty Specific:Whethertheapplicationdescribesaspecific benefit containedinthe claimedinvention.

y Examplesthatnotspecific:y A processofdiagnosinganunspecifieddiseasey Brennerv. Manson

y Substantial: Utilitiesthatrequireorconstitute carryingout furtherresearchtoidentify orreasonablyconfirm a"real world" contextofusearenotsubstantialutilitiesy Or, whetherthespecific benefit claimed before can beusedto providea well-definedand particular

benefittothe public, asdisclosedinits currentavailable form.

y In re Fishery Practical: whethera personofordinary skillintheart would credibly believethattheinventionis currentlyavailable forsuchuse. Whethertheapplicationteachesany ordinary peopleorskilled peopletousethe

claimedinvention

y A perpetual motion machiney Additionally,the creditable utility requirement could beappliedifthe claimedinventionisobviouslyincreditable.

y Lowell v. Lewisy Ctsaysinventionjusthasto be useful not bettery An Improvementon PriorArtisnotrequiredinthe patentsystem:Thustheutility doctrinedoesn'tinaugurateasubjectivesearch for" better"uses.

y Utility generally letsthe marketdecideifaninvention carries"importantto public"or"sinkinto contemptanddisregard"

y Juicy Whip v. Orange Bangy Many productaredesignedtoimitate, somethingitisnot. Suchimitation possiblehasutility Ifitis capableto provide benefit. Evenifit'sdeceptive, it'snotunpatentable

y Morel mattersare not effective any morey The Utility Requirementin Chemistry andBiotechnology

y Utility producedlittle caselaw untiltheriseof biotechnology.y Atthetimetheinventorgeneratesthe compound, no precise knowledgeofthe compoundsutility is known.

- unpatentable forspecific andsubstantial

y Brenner v. Mansony No patentifThe chemical compoundssoleutility wasits potentialroleasanobjectofuse-testing.

The practicalutility ofthe product wasprima facieforpatentability ofthe process

y A patentisnotahuntinglicense. It'snotareward forthesearch, but compensation foritssuccessfulconclusion

y The chemical process wasnotuseful by merely beinga contributiontoscientific researchers. Suchapatent may conferpowerto block wholeareasofscientific development, without compensating

benefittothe publicy Fortassaysthat you can't finduses foraninventionafteryouhave createdtheinvention. Thatthe

patentshould bethe culminationoftheinventionofsomethinguseful.

y The Utility RequirementattheFederal Circuity IN REFISHER

y Noutility becausenotsubstantialy The patentmay not begrantedtoaninventionunlesssubstantialorpracticalutility fortheinventionhas beendiscoveredanddisclosed.

y TheESTis forno morethanresearch purpose

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

7/24

y It merely help scientiststoisolate certaingenesanddo furtherexperimentationonthegeneandnoassuranceofany usefuldiscovery. ESTis mere objectsofuse-testing

y NONOBVIOUSNESSy Section 103 (a): A patent may not beaobtainedthoughtheinventionisnotidentically disclosedordescribedasset

forthinsection 102 ofthistitle, ifthedifference betweenthesubject mattersoughtto be patentedandthe priorart

aresuchthatthesubject matter as a wholewouldhave been obviousatthe time the inventionwas madetoa

personhavingordinary skill inthe artto whichthesubject matterpertains. Patentability shallnot benegatived

by the mannerin whichtheinventionis made.y Nonobviousnessisthestandard barthat preventstrivialadvancesintheusefularts from winning patent protection.y Graham v. John Deere Coobjective test

InitialTest forObviousnesshad 3 Elements:

1. Firstlookat whatisinthe priorart(scope andcontent ofthe prior artare to be determined)2. Nextlookatthedifferences between yourclaimsandthe priorart(differences betweenthe prior art

andthe claimsatissue are to be ascertained)

3. Nextask whetherthosedifferences wouldhave beenobvioustooneskilledintheartatthe time ofthe filingdate (the level of ordinary skill inthe pertinentart resolved)

y Thestandardofskilledintheartisvery fluidy Canincludeanything from atradespersontoa Ph.D.

y Atthetimeofinventionisimportanty Weneedtolookat what peopleofthatera weresayingatthattimey Thishelps managehindsight bias

y Secondary considerationyThereisone catchtouseofobjectiveindiciaofnonobviousnesstheapplicantorpatentee mustshow anexus

betweenthe claimedinventionandthe objective evidence.

y Commercialsuccessy Mustshow the successisthe result ofthe innovative claims, not merely theresultofeffective

marketingstrategiesorgeneral popularity oflike productsinthe priorart.

yLong-felt butunsolvedneedy Strongevidenceofnonobviousnessy Mustshow thattheneed correlated withthe problem solved by theinvention

yFailureofothersy Virtually irrefutableevidenceofnonobviousnessy Individual who failedmusthavehad

y Adequate knowledgey Adequate motivationy Must betryingtosolvethesame problem

yLicensing(346)y Strongevidenceofnonobviousnessy

Showsindustry respect fortheinventiony Crosslicensing may underminethenexus

y Copying(345)y Can bestrongevidenceofnonobviousness

y Especially wheretheaccusedinfringerdidnot copy any otherpriorarty Must begiven weightaccordingtoits context

y Unexpectedresultsy Teaching, Suggestion or Motivationtest (TSM)

yTheexaminerorcourt mustshow somesuggestionormotivationto maketheallegedly inventive combination

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

8/24

y Reasonto combineoverruletheTSM Test, itislargerthanTSM becauseit could beanything. It canfromthe outside factor, not merely in priorart.

y Sonow, useTSM flexibly butnot banishit.y KSR v. Teleflex

y Indeterminingwhetherthesubject matterofa patent claim isobvious, neitherthe particularmotivationnortheavowed purposeofthe patentee controls. What mattersisthe objective reach ofthe claim ifthe

claim extendsto whatis obvious,itisinvalid.

yOneofthe waysin whicha patent'ssubject mattercan be provedobviousis by notingthatthereexistedatthetimeofinventionaknown problem forwhichthere wasanobvioussolutionencompassed by the patentsclaims.

yThequestionisNOT whetherthe combinationwasobvioustothe patentee butwhether the combinationwasobviousto a personwith ordinary skill inthe art

yWeareto considerthe priorartasa wholeandhow everything fitstogether!y TheObjectiveTest forObviousness

yEmphasisshould be putonthingssuchascommonsense the Court comesup withthree KSR factorstoguidetheobviousnessinquiry:

y 1. Considermultiple piecesof priorarttounderstandtheinterrelatedteachingsofthe patentsy 2. Understandthedemand forthingsintheengineeringdesign communityy 3. Youdon'tneedaspecific teachingorsuggestion, aslongassomeone withordinary skill(andordinary

creativity)hassome reasonto combinethesethings.

y In re Translogic Technology, Inc.y A personofordinary skillintheart wouldhaveusedTGMsintheN;1 circuit configuration.y Ifapplied flexible, TSM remainsanimportant partoftheobviousnessanalysis.y theissueofobviousnessessentially asksifoneofskillintheart wouldhave considereditobviousatthetimeofinventionto combinethe priorartsources.

y OrmcoCorp v. Align TechnologyyThe productattainsahighdegreeof commercialsuccess, theevidence clearly rebutsthe presumptionthatit

wasduetothe claimedandnovel features.

yThesecondary considerationarenolongersecondary, butareessentialtotheobviousnessinquiry.y A new inventionisoften bettermeasuredinthe marketplacethanin courtroom.y A nexus betweenthe claimedinventionandtheobjectiveevidence(commercialsuccess)y See commercialsuccess part.

y Analogousarty You cannotgetreferences from anywhereand mixthem togetherdirectly and without connectionsy A technicalarea whichisanalogoustotheapplicationisanecessary.yTheappropriatereferencetest

y Two criteriahaveevolved fordetermining whetherpriorartisanalogous:y whethertheartis from thesame field of endeavor, regardlessofthe problem addressed, ANDy ifthereferenceisnot withinthe fieldoftheinventorsendeavor, whetherthereferencestill is

reasonably pertinenttothe particularproblem with whichtheinventorisinvolvedy ifittriestosolvethesame particularproblem, thenitsapplicable

yIn re Clayy The priorart wasnot withtheinventor's fieldofendeavororreasonably pertinenttothe problem thattheinventorattemptedtosolve withhisinvention.

y onehavingordinary skillintheart wouldnotreasonably haveexpectedtosolvethe problem (which)theinventor's process wasdirectedat, by consideringareferencetononanalogous priorart.

y Thetestistoolooseto bedefined broadly ornarrowly easily.y ELIGIBILITY

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

9/24

y 101: process, machine, manufacture,composition, or improvementthereof.y Eligibility isdifferent from Patentability. Eligibility isathresholdrequirementy Naturallawsofnature, natural phenomena, thingsthatoccurnaturally innature(minerals, etc.), andabstractideasarenot patentable.

y Whatisnot patentabley Naturally occurring

y Personactually doesnothinginvention, justidentifiesthenaturey Abstractideasy Mereideas

y Justa motioninhead, justanaspirationy A mentalsteps

y Theunderstandingofsomethingy Mentally thought problemsy Havenosenseininfringement conditions

y Lawsofnaturey Common knowledge forthehuman being

y Biologyy Genetic problem

y Genetic structureofany livingthingsis patentableornot?y Genomic - thegenetic structureofthe wholeorganisms

y Personalize mediciney Usesomeorganic compoundstotry tointerruptthe particularreactionin people's bodyy Theobjectionofthetestisthegenetic structurein people's bodyy Thegenetic structure foundinhuman's body isnature, andtheinventor justtestitandlistit. Justatest,nosecondopinion

y Diamond v. Chakrabartyy Oil-eating bacteriumy One can patentanything under the sun made by man,including livingthings.y Respondent microbiologist filed patent claims forhuman-made, genetically engineered bacterium that was

capableof breakingdown multiple componentsof crudeoil.

y Live, man-made micro-organism, held patentableunder35 USCS 101y you can patentaproductthathas beentransformed from a product ofnature, and you couldlikelyalso patentthe processofdoingit.

y The AMPy FACT

y AMP challenge Myriad'seligibility relatingtohumangeneticsBRAC1\ BRAC2y The claim is compositionand methods:

y twohumanisolatedgenesand certainalterations, ormutations, inthesegenesassociatedwithapredispositionto breastandovarian cancers

yifthis 2 genesexpressin yourbody, sothe breast cancerwould be 90% happening

y Myriad cameup withthe producttotestit.y Mothers wantthe 2ndopinion. Cantlet patentsystem block yourlife. Sothey try to challenge Ms

patent.

y HOLDy the judgestuckdownthe patentsandgoesintoissue of personalized medicine because policy ofif

we canhelp with cancerwhy keep itasecret

y COMPUTER-RELATEDy Copyright protectonly theactualexpression.

y Others canrewrite yourcode, alsono pure math.

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

10/24

y Taxstrategy isnoteligible,y butnotapply totax, financial management

y Bilski v. Kapposy WhetherBsmethodisa fundamental principle(anabstractidea)y A methodofhedgingriskinthe fieldof commoditiestrading

y purely mental processof performing mathematical calculations withoutaidof computer.y Theapplicant's processdoesnottransform any articletoadifferentstateorthingy Suchabstractthingsarenot physical. B's methodisnoteligible

y Usethe machine-or-transformationtest forpatent-eligibley processesare patentableonly ifthey aretiedtoa particularmachineorapparatus, ortransform a

particulararticleintoadifferentstateorthing

y However, theordinary definitionof processdoesnotrequirethatit betiedtoa machineortransform anarticle

y The machine-or-transformation' testisnow notexclusive butoptional.y The machine-or-transform test

y If yourinventionsatisfy (1) machineortransformationtest---itistiedtoa particularmachineorapparatus,or(2)ittransformsa particulararticleintoadifferentstateorthing.

y SPECIFICATIONy 112:thespecification(entiredocuments)shall containy (a)"awrittendescription(tell whatitis:definingthe scope)oftheinvention, and"

y Atthedateof filling, youhavetolay out with whatis yourintentiony you canamendthe claim to be morenarrow andto bevalidy typical matter: causeof prosecution

y Whenever you made change in the cause of prosecution, you are stuckwithwhat you initiallydisclosure, you cannot make changesto whichisnotsupportive by your regional writing

description(GentryGallery v.Berkline)

y E.g. : you cannarrow yourclaim to bevalid, but you cannotaddany new mattery

(b)Enablement: Mustset forththe mannerand processof makingandusingtheinventionina full, clear, concise,exacttermsastoenable any personskilledinthe artto make and use the same(musttellina mannerthat

ordinary skilled man wouldunderstand:howto make and use), and(Gould v. Hellwarth)(Vas-Cath v.

Mahurkar)

y Scopeofthe claim must belessthanorequaltothescopeoftheenablementy Enablementisdeterminedasoftheeffective filingdateofthe patenty RequirementofEnablement:how muchhavetodisclose?somewhere between(1)and(2)(Atlas powderCO.

v. E.I. Du Pont)

y Trivialexperimentationisgoody Reasonableexperimentationisoky Undueexperimentationisnot patentabley Takesanotherinventionisnot patentable

y (1) --------------------------------------- (2) -------------------------------------------(3)y reasonableexperiment undueexperiment requirenew invention

y (c)Best mode: shallset forththe best mode contemplated by theinventororjointinventorof carryingouthisinvention(donothidegoodstuff)

y Chemcast: mustdisclosenecessary information(two-prongtest).y Didinventorpossessa best mode forpracticingtheinvention when filing?(subjective)

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

11/24

y Istheirdisclosureadequatetoenablea personhavingordinary skillintheartto practicethe bestmode?(objective)

y Best mode knowntoinventorwhen filingy Preventinventors from concealing known preferredembodiments

y Donottypically needtoupdate best modeina continuation patenty AIA changessothat best mode cannot beusedinlawsuitsandinvalidatea patent butitisstillarequirement when

filing fora patent

y Gould v. Hellwarth - needtoo much experimentsto enable an ordinary people to make it.y Facts: Q-switchonalasery Issue: whetherthedisclosureoftheGouldapplicationwasadequatetoenablea personskilledintheartto

makeanoperabledevice

y Holding:TheGouldapplicationhas muchdisclosure but much workhadto bedonesubsequenttothe filingoftheapplication beforeanoperativelaserwas made whichis merely a fertile field forexperimentation. The

applicationdoesnotdisclosea completesetofoperating parameters() forany lasersoGoulddoesnot

provideanenablingdisclosureofhow to makethesubject matterofthe counts.

y Atlas powderCO. v. E.I. Du Pont- reasonable experimenty Someexperimentationisnecessary doesnot precludeenablement. Theamountofexperimentationmustnot

beunduly extensive.

y Evenifsomeofthe claimed combinationswereinoperative, the claimsarenotnecessarily invalidaslongasthenumberofinoperative combinationsdoesnt becomesignificant which forcestoexperimentunduly in

orderto practicethe claimedinvention.

y Useof prophetic examplesdoesnotautomatically makea patentnon-enabling. (). Challengerhasthe burdentoshow clearand convincingevidencethe prophetic examplestogetherwithotherpartsare

notenabling.

y Failurerecordsinexperimentsdonotnecessarily meanun-enablement. Skilledintheart know how tomodify slightly.

y Vas-Cat

hv. Ma

hurkar- drawingsaswrittendiscription

y Facts:y Fileddesign patentin US-(1982/3/8) which waseventually abandoned(1984/11/30)y Filedandgranted patentin Canada(1982/8/9)-priorarty Filed forutility patent(1984/10/1)-includedthesamedrawingsasthedesign patent

y Issue:y whetherthedisclosureofthedesignapplication, thedrawingadequately meetsthe writtendescriptionrequirementsoastoentitle Mahurkartothe benefitofthe 1982 filingdateofdesignapplication

y Holding:y Drawingalone may besufficientto providethe writtendescriptionoftheinvention. Becausethe

combinationinventionwas whatthedrawingsshowed, thedescription wassufficienttoraise factualquestionsof patentvalidity.

y The purposeofthe writtendescriptionis broaderthan merely explainhow to makeanduse;theapplicant mustalso convey withreasonable claritytothose skilled in the artthat, asofthe filingdate

sought, heorshe wasin possession oftheinvention.

y Gentry Gallery v. Berkline - the limitation by disclosurey Facts:

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

12/24

y Theoriginaldisclosureislimitedtosofasin whichtherecliner controlislocatedontheconsole

y TheDsaidoriginaldisclosuredidnotlimitthelocationofthereclinerto controly Thenew one provideda certain position forthereclinertositat, whichtheinventordidnot mentionintheapplication, whichisanessentialelementoftheinvention.

y Holding:y Claims may beno broaderthanthesupportingdisclosure, andthereforethatanarrow disclosure willlimit claim breadth

y Theapplicantshouldnot broadenhis claimstoextentthatthey areeffectively boundedonly by thepriorart, andnot broaderthanthesupportingdisclosure.

y Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.y Lilly Doctrine MustgiveDNA sequencetosatisfy writtendescriptionrequirementeventhoughtheoretically a personofordinary skillintheart couldgettheDNA sequence from theaminoacids

y Ithas beenchangedso thatdepositingthe material to a public banksatisfiedthe writtendescription for DNA sequence

y Referenceina patentspecificationtoadepositina public depository, whichmakesits contentsaccessibletothe public whenitisnototherwiseavailablein written form, constitutedanadequatedescriptionofthe

deposited materialsufficientto comply withthe writtendescriptionrequirementof35 U.S.C.S. 112, para.

1.

y CLAIMSy The coresentence: particularly pointoutanddistinctly claim theinvention.y Theessenceofthe patentrightistherighttoexcludeothers from making, using, selling, orofferingtosellthe

claimedinvention. The claimsdefinethe boundsofthatrighttoexclude. Accordingly the claimsarethe most

significant partoftheentire patentinstrument.

y 112 is brokendownas follows:y 2 instructs patentdrafterstoset forthdistinctly the boundsoftheinvention.y 3-5 governdependent claimsy

6 covers means-plus-function claimingy Generally:

y Wehaveno picture claimsy Referencetoany diagramsisstrongly discouraged

y Thisis becausesuch claimstonotinherently definetheinvention, butratherrely onexternal materialtodoso

y The claims must particularly pointoutanddistinctly claim theinventionwithoutreadinginlimitations fromthespecification

y The claim isthe measureofthe patent the courts willnotsearchthespecification forlimitinginformationy CourtsDO HOWEVERinterpret claimsinlightofthespecification

y Broad claimsy Easiesttoinvalidatey Minimum numberof claim elements

y Narrow claimsy Difficulttoinvalidatey Many claim elementsgenerally

y Thelogic game betweenindependent claim anddependent claim. (Claim 1:A, Claim 2:A+B. 1invaliddoesnot mean 2 invalid, but 2 invalid 1 mustinvalid).

y Three partstoa claim:y 1.Preamblehavetohaveanapparatus-like claim (articleof manufacture, composition)ormethod.

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

13/24

y generally statesthegeneraluseorpurposeoftheinvention.y Unnecessary verbiageinthe preamble canreducethescopeof patent coveragey Kesansays Preamblesarenot consideredalimiting factor;they haveno patentable weight. THISIS

GENERALLY TRUE UNLESSTHE PREAMBLE SPECIFICALLY SAYSSOMETHING.

y 2 Transition phrase e.g. comprising, consistingessentially of .y This phrase performstheessentiallegal functionofsignalingthatthe claim is openorclosedtoadditionalelements.

y Comprisingy This is the open transition the use of the term comprising captures any product or

process that contains each and every element described in the body of the claim.

y The presence of additionalelements in an accused product or process does not affect atall the coverage of the claims. The claimed invention encompasses the recited elements

and mayembrace more.

y Consisting ofy This is the closed transition a claim with the transition phrase consisting of is closed to

additional ingredients.

y Infringement can occur only when the accused technology has exactly the sameelementsrecited in the claim no more, no less.

y Closed claim language allows an inventor to claim an existing technology or patentedinvention (minus the deleted feature or step) without running into the prior art!

y Consisting Essentially ofy This is thehybrid transition this renders the claim open to include additionalelements

that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed

combination.

y 3 Body wantthe minimum amountoflimitationstoovercomethe priorarty The body ofthe claim recitestheelementsoftheinvention, as wellastheirinteraction witheachothereitherstructurally orfunctionally.

y Referencetoelementsrecitedearlierinthe claim usually requiresasignalingterm, suchasthedefinitearticle theortheterm said(withoutthis, the patentexaminermay rejectthe claim forlack

ofanantecedent basis).

y The product-by-process claim specifiesa productdefinedonly by several processsteps. Althoughaproduct-by-process claim sets forthonly one way of makingthe product, it might be construedto coverall waysof

makingthatsame product. The correctreadingof product-by-process claimsisthatthey arenotlimitedto product

prepared by the processset forthinthe claims.

y 35 U.S.C. 112 6 permitsaninventorto claim aninventionasa means forperforminga function, commonlyknownasa means-plus-functionclaim. This claim form permitsadraftertolista multitudeofthe waysto

perform a claimed function.

y Whenthe word"means"isused, thereisa presumptionthattheelementisgoverned by 112 6;howevereven withoutthe magic words, a court canstill construea claim asmeans plus function.

yHowever, withoutanidentified function, theterm "means"insucha claim cannotinvoke 112 6. Withouta meanssufficiently connectiontoarecited function, the presumptioninuseofthe work means

wouldntoperate.

y Means-plus-function claim elementsarelimitedto the structure disclosedinthe applicationthatcorrespondsto the performed function,inadditionto any equivalentsthereof.

y Al-Site Corp. v. VSIy Ina means+function, orstep+function, youhavetolookatthe corresponding meansorstepsinthespecification, orlookattheequivalent.

y Twodifference betweenEquivalenceunder1126 andDOE:

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

14/24

y 1) 1126 isaboutliteral infringement(different from DOE). Literalinfringementrequiresthatevery itemonthe claim isshownsame function. DOEsaysthatevenifthereisnoliteralinfringement, there may still

beequivalenceundertheDOE.substantial function.

y 2)DOE canapply after-arisingtechnology, but 1126, youareonly ableto claim thoseequivalentsthatwere available atthe time of filing.

y 3) 1126 permitsaninventorto claim aninventionasa means forperforminga function, notrecitalofstructure, materialoractsinsupport.

y The propertest fordeterminingequivalenceunder112 6 is whetherthedifferences betweenthestructureintheaccuseddeviceandany disclosedinthespecificationareinsubstantial.y Under112-6 the function must beidenticaly UndertheDoctrineofEquivalents, it can bemoreloosely defined

y Claim Definiteness112 2 Cleardefinitionofthescopeoftheinventiony 1 The claim mustgivea cleardefinitionofthescopeoftheinventionwhen construedinlightoftheentire patentdocument.

y 2 Ifaskilledartisan would findthe claim languagesufficiently distincttounderstandits meaning, thenthe claim issufficiently definite.

y Orthokinetics, Inc v. Safely TravelChairsy Inthis case, there'snosimple way ofdescribingthedimensions, becausetherearea widerangeofdimensionsin carseats, soit makessenseto writeitthis way.

y Aslongasthoseofordinary skillintheartrealizedthatthedimensions could beeasily obtained, 112 2requiresnothing more.

y Weasel words degree, about, approximately, etc. whena wordofdegreeisusedthedistrict court mustdetermine whetherthe patentsspecification providessomestandard formeasuringthatdegree

y PROSECUTIONy 282:a patentshall be presumedvalid, each claim, independentordependent, shall be presumedvalid.

y Needhigherburden clearand convincingevidencetotakedowna patenty Microsoft v. i4i

y The 2007 versionofWordincludeda feature foradding custom XMLdataand mappingstoelectronicdocuments.

y Itallegedly infringei4i's patenty preponderancestandard(51%)notenoughto challenge patentin court, becausethe patenthadalready

passedthe PTO

y need"clearand convincingevidence"totakedowna patentin courty INEQUITABLE CONDUCT

y only existnamely, pushed backby THERASENSEand AIAy Intenttodeceive

y Negligence, grossnegligencearenotsufficienty

Usually misrepresent, rarely Omissiony Materiality ofinformation withheld

y Informationis material whenthereisasubstantiallikelihoodthatreasonableexaminerwould consideritimportantindecidingwhethertoallow applicationtoissueas patent

y Ifguilty ininequitable conduct, it'svery different from invalidity!The whole patentisgone;invalidity meansonlythe claim isgone.

y Commonlitigationtech: by beingallegedinequitable conduct, party mightgoto court;orcontestit(betweenparties) withevidence, forcedtogiveup secretinfo, by making yourownattorney onthe witnessdesk. The benefit

issohuge.

y 257 cure inequitable conduct

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

15/24

y supplementalexaminationy Thenew procedureallows patentownerstoreturntothe patentofficeto cite previously undisclosed priorartor

correcterrorsandomissions madeduringtheoriginal prosecution, thereby allowing companiestoremedy actsor

omissionsthat could beusedasthe basis foraninequitable conduct claim.

y THERASENSEv. BECTON DICKINSONy Moveaway old slidingscaletest forinequitable conduct, which providedthatagreatershowingof

materiality permittedalessershowingofintenttodeceive.

y Imposeaknowinganddeliberatestandard forintenttodeceive.y Proofofnegligenceorgrossnegligenceisnolongersufficient.y theevidence mustshow thattheapplicant knew ofthereference, knew thatit was material, and

madeadeliberatedecisionto withholdit.

y Deliberately plan, precisely executeity Endorseabut-forstandard formateriality

y the patent wouldnothave beenissuediftheinformationhad been knowntotheexaminery LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

y Ifeachelementina properly construed claim is foundinthedevice, thereisliteralinfringement.y The court construethe claim -matteroflawy comparetotheallegedly infringingdevice -matterof fact

y Markman v. Westview y Theinterpretationoftheterm inventoryy Heldthattheinterpretationof claim termsistheexclusive provinceofthe court(not Jury)andthatthe

SeventhAmendmentrighttoa jury trialis consistent withthat conclusion.

y Cybor v. FASy Thestandardofreview inMarkman 1 wasnot changed by Markman 2, reaffirm thatisa purely legalquestion. Theappealing court couldreview claim constructiondenovo.

y Underclaim constructionnotinfringement, the patenteehastwo choices:y a. Appealautomatically appeal consenty b. Convincethe judgeto certify, novel

y Phillips v. AWHwhat should be done to construe a claimy construction fortheterm baffley 7 rulesBrysonlaysout

y construedthe claim inthelightofthe wholereferenceandspecificationy useresourcesthatisavailabletothe public

y the wordsofthe claim themselves, theremainderofthespecification, the prosecutionhistory, extrinsic scientific principles

y claim differentiationdoctriney thesameterm usedindifferent claimshasdifferent meaning

y ex. steel baffleinone claim doesnotmeanthe baffleinherently madeofsteel3.

patentee cangiveaspecialdefinitiontoa claim term inthespecification, whichdiffers fromotherwise possess

y patenteeisthe master forthe meaningofthetermy not whatothers' understandingy theinventor'slexicography governs

4. prosecutionhistory thathappenedin PTOisimportanty Intrinsic, evidence -more

5. extrinsic evidencey Extrinsic, likeexperttestimony, inventortestimony, technicaldictionaries, handbook, treatise less

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

16/24

y Whentheintrinsic construingisavailable, intrinsic isthe first, whennointrinsic construing,extrinsic construingneedsto be consideredinthelightofspecification, butnottheordinary

mean.

6. avoiddangerofreadingunimportantlimitations from thespecificationintothe claim7. iftheterm wasambiguous, ithasto be construedina mannerthatthe claim isvalid

y Whenthe constructionof claim isdetermined by the courty Comparethe properconstrued withtheaccusedinfringement

y Ifevery claim can be found, itisliterally infringementy Ifnotliterally infringement, thedoctrineofequivalenceappliesy Thetechnology is complex, andthe patenteeneedsome flexibilities so weneedDoE

y Key pointofthe patenttechnology should be comparedunderDoE, butnottheirrelevant partsy DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENCE

y A productorprocess which performsandidentical functiontoa patentedinvention may avoidliteralinfringementbutstillinfringeunderthedoctrineofequivalenceifthedifferencesareinsubstantial.

y Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products Inc.y Wantto patent welding composition. Usingsilicatesof calcium and manganeseinsteadofsilicatesof

calcium and magnesium.

y Chemists would know thatthey aresimilarandinterchangeabley Tripartite function-way-resulttest

y Equivalence:Elementatissue performsthesubstantially thesame functioninsubstantially thesameway toobtainsubstantially thesameresult - should be foundatthesametimeintheaccused

infringementhappened.

y This works well formechanicalthings butnot foralltypesoftechnologyy Insubstantial Difference Test

y Somethingisdeemedequivalentifthereonly an"insubstantial change" between each ofthe featuresoftheaccuseddeviceorprocessandthe patent claim.

y Interchangeability isagoodindicatorofinsubstantialdifferencey Element by element

y DOE must beappliedtoindividualelementsofthe claim, NOTtotheinventionasa whole. Ifthereisnoliterally infringement, youshoulduseDOE.

y Ifthe missingelement creates substantialdifferences, the All Element Rule preclude theinfringement, ifnot, DoctrineofEquivalentoperates.

y If you madea changeduringthe prosecutionhistory to yourclaims, thereisa presumptionthat youmadethatchange for patentability reasons, andthat youhavetorebutthat presumption.

y Intent ofinfringer isnot required butmay be consideredy Equivalency isto bedeterminedatthetime ofinfringement, notatthetimeofissued.y Warner-Jerkinson v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.

y thedoctrineofequivalentshadnot been met, becauseWarnerhaddevelopeda processusingasolution witha pH of 5.0, which wasoutsidetherangeofthe plaintiff's patent 6.0-9.0.WarnercannotuseDOEto protecthisold claim.

y The Courtenunciatedatest foramendments, findingthatifthe plaintiff can provethereason fortheamendment wasnottolimitthe patent, theninfringement wasstill possible.

y The All Elements Rule:Therequirementthatdoctrineofequivalents canonly apply toanaccused productorprocessthat containseach limitationofa claim, either literally or equivalently.

y ifthereisamissing element, thentherecan be no infringementliterally orequivalentlyy Todefinetheelement, firstlookatthe 112 6 Means PlusFunction, ifthatdoesnot work, thengotothe

DOE. Howeverifgetliterally infringement, thereisnoequivalentinfringement.

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

17/24

y Prosecution History Estoppel: A doctrinethat precludesrecaptureunderthedoctrineofequivalentsofsubjectmattersurrenderedduringthe patentapplication process. If you makea changeto claim elementthat would be

presumedchange was made for reason for patentability, inwhich case you cannotgetequivalentsonthat

change claim.

1. Certainreasons fora claim amendment may avoidtheapplicationof prosecutionhistory estoppeldoesnotmeanthattheabsenceofareason foranamendment maysimilarlyavoidsuchanestoppel

2. Toplace the burden onthe patent- holdertoestablishthe reason for anamendment requiredduringprosecution, thendecide whetheritissufficienttoovercomeestoppel.

3. Ifnot, presumesubstantialreasontogetthe patent.y Theallowedterritory will belimited by the presumptionthat youramendmentis material foryour

patentto be passed

y Therebuttableof presumptionisa way todraw theliney Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo

y Function-way-resulttest:the key problem: whetheritdoessoin substantially thesame wayy Allelementsrule:

y Theonly issuehereisiftheelementinvolvingdopantis present:y Reading claim as:

y Addingdopantto corey Sumitomo wins becausethey addeditelsewhere

y Addingdopantto changeindexofrefractiony Corning wins becausethey bothdidthat

y Changingtheindexofrefractiondifferentialy Corning wins becausethey bothdidthat

y Anequivalent must be found forevery limitationofthe claim somewhereinanaccuseddevice, butnotnecessarily ina corresponding component, althoughthatisgenerally the case.

y If youhavea claim, anda bunchofelementsinthat claimy Thereishardtohaveequivalenceavailable forthealtered claim ofthe prosecution process

y Theamendedelementshould be presentedliterallyy Thesubject matter, key thingofthe patentshould beliterally saidandnoequivalence

y So you canFilealotof claimsinthe prosecution process, withlittledifferences betweeneachofthem, whena bunchofthem arerefused by PTO, youstill canhaveanotherbunchofsimilarandnoamendment claims,

means you canstillapplyDoEinlitigation.

y FestoCorp. v. Shoketsuy Magnetic rodless cylinderpatent withtwosealingringsy Competitormadeanon-magnetic cylinderwithasinglesealingringy Anamendmentnarrowinga claim tosatisfy arequirementofthe Patent may giverisetoestoppely Estoppel doesnot barthe patentee from assertinginfringementagainstany equivalenttothenarrowedelement

y Bearthe burdenofshowingthattheamendmentdoesnotsurrendertheequivalentinquestiony

Iftheamendmentsurrenderedtheequivalentthenthere cannot beinfringementy Today, theruleis"rebuttable presumption" - a more flexible bar.

y Threereason forhavingequivalenceafteramendmentsy The changewasnotrelatedtotheequivalenceavailable

y Theunforeseeablereasony Discloseinspecification, butnotincludedinthe claimy Thespecificationitself barsthe claim tohasaequivalenceinthespecificationy Because you foreseeitanddidn'tactually claim it, you cannothavesuchaequivalence.

y Amendment might betangentialtotheissue

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

18/24

y Therationaleunderlyingtheamendment may bearno morethanatangential relationtotheequivalentinquestion

y The changeisnotrelatedtotheequivalentelementsy TheDedicationDoctrine

1. Subject matterdisclosed butnot claimedina patentapplicationisdedicatedtothe public; party whoshould bearthe burdenistheinventor.

2. 35 U.S.C. 251 Withintwo years from thegrantoftheoriginal patent, a patenteemayfile a reissue applicationandattempttoenlarge the scope of the o riginal claimstoincludethedisclosed but previously unclaimedsubject

matter. It caneven filethereissueafteryou findanallegedinfringer, solongas youarestill withinthetwo yearwindow(couldliterally claim a pictureoftheallegedinfringing product, solongasthe claim issupported by the

originaldisclosure)

3. Inaddition, a patentee can fileaseparateapplication claimingthedisclosedsubject matter(allowing filingasacontinuationapplicationif file beforeallapplicationsinthe chainissue).

4. A patentee cannotapply the DoEto cover unclaimedsubject matter disclosedinthe application itisdedicatedto the public.

5. Foreseeability bar (non-textual infringement):oneordinary skillintherelevantart would foresee coverageofaninvention, a patentdrafterhasanobligationto claim those foreseeablelimits. TheDOE wouldnotrescuea

drafterwhodoesnot providesuchnotice.

y J&JAssoc. v. R.E. Servicey J&J had patentedaluminum butonly mentionedsteel backinginthespecification. Couldnotrecoveragainststeeluserbecausesteeldescriptionnotinthe claimsofthe patent.

y A patentdisclosesanunclaimedalternative distinct from theclaimedinvention. /Not means/ DOEcouldneverencompasssubject matterdisclosedinthespecification butnot claimed.

y Thereissued patentshould betreatedas partoftheoriginal patent.y Prior ArtLimitation

y Evenifthe function-way-resulttestis met, however, there can benoinfringementiftheassertedscopeofequivalency of whatisliterally claimed wouldencompassthe priorart.

y You cannotexpandthe claim ina mannerthat wouldrenderthe claim invalid.y Suppose: when apply the DoE, Rewrite a claim in a mannerthat can make an alleged device literally infringed, if

thatrewrite claim is invalid because of certain priorart, the rewrite claim cannot be an equivalence of the original

claim.

y But it is inapplicable in litigationy As the attention has been transferred from construing the claim to how to define the description of the

accused device

y But it is still valuable in theoretical usey A patenteeshouldnot beabletoobtain, undertheDoE, coverage whichhe couldnotlawfully haveobtained fromthe PTO by literal claims.

y Wilson Sporting Goods v. David Geoffreyy Patentgolf ball. No principleddifference from theaccused ballandthe ballin priorart.y

DOEexiststo preventa fraudona patent, nottogivea patenteesomethinghe couldnotlawfully obtainedfrom PTO.

y Wouldnothavegranteda patentthat wasliterally covered by priorarty Equivalency cannotalso be covered by priorart

y Patenteeshouldnot beabletoget protectionviathedoctrineofequivalence forsomethingthey wouldnothavegotten protectionnormally from the USPTO.

y Thenovelty partofa patent cannothaveany equivalence, it must be writtenliterally.y Theelementsotherthantheelementthat makestheinventionnovel may haveanequivalent forinfringement by equivalence, buttheelementthat makestheinventionnovel must be presentliterally. (This

appliesinsome jurisdictions butnotall.) Ifa bucketis foundinthe priorartandthenovelty ofthe present

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

19/24

inventionisahandleona bucket, the bucket may haveanequivalent, butthehandle must beliterally

present.

y INDIRECT INFRINGEMENTy Whilesomeoneisinfringingdirectly, but youdont wantto proceedagainstdirectinfringer, youactually wantsuetheguy aiding contributingtheinfringement

y Rule 271y (b)Whoeveractively inducesinfringementofa patentshall beliableasaninfringer.y (c)Whoeverofferstosellorsells withinthe United Statesorimportsintothe United Statesa componentofa patented machine, manufacture, combination, orcomposition, ora materialor

apparatus forusein practicinga patented process, constitutinga material partoftheinvention,

knowingthesameto beespecially madeorespecially adapted foruseinaninfringementofsuch

patent, andnotastablearticleorcommodity of commercesuitable forsubstantialnoninfringinguse,

shall beliableasa contributory infringer.

2. Actively inducement whentheinfringingtechhas multipleuses besidestheoneinfringingy encourage, specific intent & specific action

E.g.., providesinstructions, advertising, offerstraining

y DSUv. JMSyNo foundof Specific intendandactionuponit may construeinfringey Simply because knowingly theinfringementisnotenough

y Youneedto know thattheactions wouldactually inducethespecific acts, orcauseaninfringement.y Underlyingthat, theaccused contributory infringershouldhave knownthe patent.

3. Contributory infringement whentheonly useofthe componentisinfringingusey Theone

y sellsa material componentofa patent,y the componentisnotstapleandnotsuitableofsubstantialnoninfringinguse.yhe knowsthe componenthas beenadoptedtouse would constituteinfringement,

y is contributory infringingy there will benoindirectinfringementunlesstheresdirectinfringement.y Typically it would bea customerdirectly infringing.y Someone providingthistechnology contributestotheinfringement.y Ifthe customerisnotinfringing, thenthe providerisnotinfringing.4. Legal Repair & Illegal Reconstructionyy patent exhaustion

yOnce buy agood, candolotsofthingsonity

Withinlegally repair, anddonotillegally reconstructionyThe paymentofa productembodieda patent constitutethelicensetousethe patent.

y e.g., sellalaptopy You cando whateveryou want withit, like fixitandresellit. Because youarenotsellingthe patent.yOnly when youreproducingthelaptop basedontheoldlaptop isinfringing. -Cantuseitto create more.y Istherea way toavoidexhaustion?

y I wouldliketogive youtodosomething butnottodootherthingsy On-conditionalsell

y Soldalicense forcertaintechnique patenty Andimposerestrictionin what you candoorwhat you cannot

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

20/24

y Soldaseedlicense whichonly allow to produce foodand products, but cannot producenew seedsanymore.

y Donotsell, butonly licenseit.y Jazz Photo v.USITC

yFuji forbidothersto make cameras by usinghisused camerasy HOLD: Jazzisdoingas closeasreconstruction.y Accordingto patentexhaustion, Jazzisrepairingratherthanreconstruing

y ADDITIONALDEFENSEy Experimentaluse

y Philosophicalexperimentsorforthe purposeofascertainingthesufficiency ofthe machineto produceisnotconsideredasinfringement.271(e)1.

y No broadexperimentaluseexceptionin USy Only oneexperimentaluseexceptiony Noa wideground whichsupportstheexperimentaluseexception

y Roche v. Bolar Pharmaceuticaly Wanttodoresearch forgeneric medicine beforethe patentgone - pickup immediatelyy Therulingisirrelevanttoday because Congress passedHatch-WaxmanAct.

y Whatthe Hatch-WaxmanActsays:[(----------)-----------------------------------------------------]

PatentTerm (20 years from filing) Extends

time

forthe patentand

Grantsthegeneric righttodo

Experimentsduringthis period.

y Itis well-settledthatanexperiment witha patentedarticle forthesole purposeofgratifyinga philosophicaltaste, orcuriosity, orformereamusementisnotaninfringementoftherightsofthe patentee.

y Bolar'suseissolely forbusinessreasonsandnot foramusement, tosatisfy idle curiosity, orforstrictlyphilosophicalinquiry.

y The courtrefusestoextendtheexperimentaluseexceptiontoincludeuses fordefinite, cognizable, andnotinsubstantial commercial purposes.

y MisuseyThesameoutcomeasinequitable conductyUSM v.SPS

y Classical misusey Keep requiringlicenseesto pay royalty afteranexpireddateofthe patenty Tying: youareusing you patenttoobtain market powerinsomethingrelatedto you patent(but

youdon'thavea patentinthatthing)and youshouldn'thaveand make money basedonusing

that market power.

yThe particularlicenseearrangementy Differentrates, differentdeals, particularreasons forparticulararrangements

y Justseenas commercialdecisionsnowadays. itreflectsthenatureofthedeal. It'sthefreedom ofthelicensortothelicensee

y Laches. Sec 282y Anequitabledefense.

y a patenteeis barred fordamagesifheunreasonably delayedthesuit formorethan 6 years.y Priordamagesare barred

y Likea Statutory limitation: 6 yearlook back window: when you filealaw suit, you cannevercollectdamages fortheinfringementthattook place morethan 6 years beforesuit.

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

21/24

y However, Futuredamagelikerunningroyalty isalwaysallowed, but pastdamageisallowedonly for6 years. Eventhe patentisexpired;itstill cango back for6 years.

yTworequirementsto meet(defendanthasthe burdento prove)y Patentee hasdelayedthe practice ofthe rightandthistype ofdelay is unreasonable.y The presumption

y Wherea patenteedelays bringingsuit formorethan 6 yearsafterthedatethe patentee knew orshouldhave knownoftheallegedinfringersactivity.

y Plaintiff couldovercomethe presumption by givingevidence why thisdelay isreasonableandacceptable. i.e. otherlitigation, negotiations withtheaccused patent, anddisputeoverownership ofthe patent.

y Wouldsuffer material prejudice whichisattributable to the delayy Economic prejudice may arise whereadefendantincursdamages which wouldhave been

preventedifhadthesuit been broughtearlier.

y Evidentiary prejudice may arise wherethedelay preventsdefendant from presentinga fullandfairdefenseonthe merits, duetothedeathof critical witnesses, thedimmingof memories, or

theunavailability ofrecords, thereby underminingthe courtsability todeterminethe facts.

yA.C. Aukeman Co. v. R.L.Chaides Constr. Co.y Facts: P sentletterstoDtoofferalicensetoits patent, butDrefusedandsaidthatif you wanttosue

me for$200-$300, goahead. 8 yearslater, Licensee wantsthesamelicensing fees forhavingsame

competitivenessinthe market. P suesD forinfringement.

y Situations:y Patenteedonotdoanythingtoenforce you patenty Peoplehasreasonto believe youarenottoenforce you patent

y To punish people whodelaysto practicetheirexclusiveright by forbiddingtheypracticingtherightagainafteralongtime(6 years).

y Equitableestoppely Patenteedonesomethingto makeinfringertoinferthatthe conductisok.

y LachesandEstoppelare bothequitabledefensesunder35 USC 282. Whilelaches focusesonthereasonablenessofthe plaintiffsdelay insuit, equitableestoppel focuseson whatthedefendanthas

beenledtoreasonably believe from the plaintiffs conduct.(reasonablereliance)

y Relianceontheinferencey Patenteethroughmisleading conductleadstheallegedinfringertoreasonably inferthatthe

patenteedoesnotintendtoenforceits patentagainsttheallegedinfringer.

y A material prejudicedifthe patent being processed by the patentee's claim.y Youdosomethingandotherpeoplerelianceon what youdo, itisunfairtodosomething badtothat person.

Thereisvery few Estoppel case becauseitishardto prove.

y REMEDIESy Injunction

283 (Injunctiverelief)

Courts with jurisdictionunderthistitle maygrantinjunctionsinaccordance withthe principlesofequity to preventtheviolationofany rightsecured by patent, onsuchtermsasthe courtdeems

reasonable.

y Preliminary injunctionyLikelihoodthatthereare meritsto makea win possible

y Any kindofdelay would beharmfultothe patenteey Likelihoodofsuccesses

y Validy Infringedy If money isnotenough fortheloss

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

22/24

y Becoming permanentinjunctiony Harm is compensableonthelaw.y Irreparableharm tothe patenteey On balanceofhardships between patenteeandinfringer.y Public interest

y A permanentinjunction would beharmfulto public interestyFinalinjunction - permanentinjunction?

y When money isnotenoughy eBay v. MercExchange

y Fact: Merchangeholdsa patentona business method foranelectric marketdesignedto facilitatethesaleofgoods between privateindividuals by establishinga centralauthority to promotetrustamong

participants.

y Rule:Fed. Cir. Cterredinapplyingthegeneralrulethat courts willissue permanentinjunctionagainstabsentexceptional circumstances.

y Damages284(Damages)

Upon finding forthe claimant, the courtshallawardthe claimantdamagesadequateto compensate

fortheinfringement, butinnoeventlessthanareasonableroyalty fortheuse madeoftheinvention

by theinfringer, togetherwithinterestand costsas fixed by the court.

The court may increasethedamagesup tothreetimestheamount foundorassessed.

y Liability is provedy Sb. isinfringing

y How to compensatetheinfringement. Compensatory damagesy Reasonableroyalty

y The floorofdamagesy Theinfringerdeprivethe profits coming from licenseey Thehyponegotiationlikealicensee forresellrevenue

y Lost profitsy "But-for": withouttheinfringer, the profits wouldgoto patentee(reasonable, objective,

foreseeability)

yTorecoverlost profitsdamages, the patentee mustshow areasonable probability that,but fortheinfringement, it wouldhave madethesalesthat were made by the

infringer.

y Whenthe patenteeestablishesthereasonablenessofthisinference, theburdenthenshiftstotheinfringertoshow thattheinferenceisunreasonable

forsomeorallofthelostsales.

y Lost profits = disgorgement + profiterosiony Disgorgement= profitshe madeonhisinfringing profity Profit erosion = the pricedrop onthe whole pieyE.g. initially youhave whole marketat $5/unit, whole marketis 100 units. Theninfringing product comesin, pricedropsto $3 and yourmarketsharedropsto 50%.

Assume costof productionis $2.

yDisgorgement = $1 x 50 = $50y ProfitErosion = 100 x $2 = $200

y Patentee cannotget bothofthemy Inatwosellermarket, itisquitesimple, butinreality, itishardto proveit

y PanduitCorp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Worksy Appointeda mastertodeterminethedamages, althoughheisnotsogood...

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

23/24

y Lost profittheory:a patentownermustreceive from theinfringerdamagesadequatetocompensate fortheinfringement. 284

y DAMP test:Toobtainlostsales, the patentownermust provey Demand forthe patented product;y Absenceofacceptablenon-infringingsubstitutes(criticalelement);y Manufacturingand marketing capability toexploitthedemand;y Theamountof Profithe wouldhave made.

y Lost profits cannot be proved, the patentownerisentitledtoareasonableroyalty.y The inquire of "The Entire Market Rule"

yWhetheritisTheessential partofthe whole productisthe key elementtoevaluatetheroyaltyyDependson whatthesituationisy If youdosomethingmore, youshoulddeserve moreroyaltyyTheinsidedocumentisavery importantelementto judgetherecognitionoftheinfringerandthelicensee.yRite-Hide v. Kelley

y WhetherRite-Hideshould beentitledthedamagesofanunpatented componentsold withthe patentcomponent

y Whetheryou canstillgetthe profits, when youarenot working youown patent?y Foreseeableinfringement

y Ifa particularinjury wasorshouldhave beenreasonably foreseeable by aninfringingcompetitorintherelevantmarket, broadly defined, andtheinfringerkeep selling compete

products, sothatinjury isgenerally compensable.

y Profitsonnon-patented componentssell withthe patent component, should beget by the patentee?y Ifthe patentedandunpatented components constituteasingle functionalunit, thentheentirevalue marketrule permitsa patenteetorecoverdamages basedonthevalueofthe patentees

entireapparatus

y Ifthey could workorbeusedindependently ofeachother, they can besoldseparately, thenpatentee cannotgetthe profits from suchanindependent components.

y Inshort, functiontogether, soldtogether, cannot bedecidedseparately.y Enhanceddamages

yWillfully compensationy To punishtheinfringer

y Notasubjectiveissuey Butareasonableobjectiveissue

y Any reasonable personintheinfringerposition wouldstop suchaninfringingaction.y Theinvalidity defense could beareasonto continuetheinfringement

y Butthe willfulinfringementisnotso manyy Ifthe patenteeestablishesthe willfulinfringing, theattorney fee would beissuedundersuchasituation

y Attorney feesy

285(Attorney Fees)y Inexceptional cases, the court may awardreasonableattorney feestothe prevailing party.

----------------------------------------------------------

y Section 298y Theattorney-client privilegeislessimportanty Cannot bea protectshellof willfulinfringementy Old:

y Youhadtoshow that you comply theduty ofdue carey Getadviceofa counsel first

8/3/2019 12-14 patent (2)

24/24

y Theopinionisimportanty Andthengotodoresearch

y Ifnosuchevidence, thenthe presumptionis youare willfulinfringing.y Now:

y If you carefulstatethereasonwhy theinfringementhappen, it could behelpfuly A goodopinion from anadvise counsel might behelpful

y ---------------------------------------------------------- y Big picture

y Thereason forpatentisy Createa possibility ofsupercompetitive pricingy Licensingrevenuey Defense purposey Tradevaluey Financing