Bill Goodwine's Wiki - User contributions [en]

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-29T17:53:29Z

Josh Bradley:

==Reading Notes==
*CAFC held that doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to method patents at all, and that it does not apply here because the sales were not authorized by the license agreement
*Supreme Court disagreed on both counts; “Because the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents, and because the license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhausted the patents.”
===Case===
*LG made License Agreement with Intel, which authorizes Intel to “ ‘make, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell, import or otherwise dispose of’ ” its own products practicing the LGE Patents
*Quanta manufactured computers using Intel parts in combination with non-Intel memory and buses in ways that practice the LGE Patents
*LGE filed a complaint against Quanta, asserting that the combination of the Intel Products with non-Intel memory and buses infringed the LGE Patent
===Lower Courts===
*District Court granted summary judgment to Quanta
**for purposes of the patent exhaustion doctrine, the license LGE granted to Intel resulted in forfeiture of any potential infringement actions against legitimate purchasers of the Intel Products
**Intel products have no reasonable noninfringing use and therefore their authorized sale exhausted patent rights in the completed computers
*CAFC concluded that exhaustion did not apply because LGE did not license Intel to sell the Intel Products to Quanta for use in combination with non-Intel product
===Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion===
*doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item
*“[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly” Bloomer v. Millinger (1864)
*“the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it.” Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. (1917)
===Supreme Court===
====Patent Embodiment====
*Nothing in this Court's approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE's argument that method patents cannot be exhausted
**methods nonetheless may be “embodied” in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights
*As the Court explained [in Univis], exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they “embodie[d] essential features of [the] patented invention.”
**Like the Univis lens blanks, the Intel Products constitute a material part of the patented invention and all but completely practice the patent
**the incomplete article substantially embodies the patent because the only step necessary to practice the patent is the application of common processes or the addition of standard parts
**Quanta had no alternative but to follow Intel's specifications in incorporating the Intel Products into its computers because it did not know their internal structure
====Exhaustion of Patent====
*Exhaustion is triggered only by a sale authorized by the patent holder
**LGE argues that there was no authorized sale here because the License Agreement does not permit Intel to sell its products for use in combination with non-Intel products to practice the LGE Patents
**The License Agreement authorized Intel to sell products that practiced the LGE Patents. No conditions limited Intel's authority to sell products substantially embodying the patents.
*The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article.

==Class Notes==
*LG Electronics had 3 patents, involving computer memory items
*had 2 contracts with Intel (the manufacturer): a license of patent rights, Intel could not sell it without notice of restrictions of use
*Intel sold the processors to Quanta (provided the notice), who combined Intel processors with non-Intel products
*District Court: summary judgment for Quanta based on patent exhaustion
*CAFC: method does not warrant doctrine
**not linked to anything tangible
*Supreme Court: exhaustion applies to method
**if method does not warrant doctrine, lawyers can get around exhaustion by claiming everything is a method claim
**Intel’s processors could only be reasonably used to fulfill claims in patent (no non-infringing use)

Quanta Brief Summary 901471466

2011-04-28T20:39:42Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==Brief of Computer & Communications Industry Association (“CCIA”) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal== *CCIA members participate in many sectors of the computer, inform..."

==Brief of Computer & Communications Industry Association (“CCIA”) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal==
*CCIA members participate in many sectors of the computer, information, and communications technology industry and use the patent system regularly
*While CCIA does not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, allowing the Federal Circuit’s decision to stand would threaten the future economic prospects of CCIA’s industry sector
*Under the Federal Circuit’s ruling, making sales “conditional” circumvents the exhaustion doctrine and allows patentees to retain the option of asserting the full arsenal of patent rights at any point that the component changes hands
**threatens the vitality and efficiency of the IT product markets
**allows patent holders to engineer “conditional sales” to evade exhaustion for an infinite variety of purposes
*Transparency and shared information are key attributes of property whether the markets are thin (real estate and patents) or thick (IT components)
**“conditional sales” severs the crucial connection between property and markets
**invites clever lawyers to create regulatory regimes sanctioned by public law to extract new revenues for patent holders at every transaction point in the supply chain
**ruling promises to turn a robust, high-volume market into a lawyer’s playground – a shadow of economy of permissions that contributes no technology or economic value but is able to exploit whatever dependencies exist in the present distribution chain
*The exhaustion doctrine provides a clear, bright line segregating the familiar laws of personal property and sales from the unique power of federal patent laws
**companies typically need to run clearances searches in order to avoid infringing the vast number of patents, especially in the technology market
**the cost now imposed by the Federal Circuit is not merely the cost of a clearance search, but the cost of searching the upstream portion of the distribution chain of an IT good for hidden servitudes, for which no government registry exists
**strict liability and high search costs show the need for a bright-line first sale doctrine
*Any and all of the patent holders that are presently neutralized by cross-licensing have effectively been given a hunting license in the open season by the Federal Circuit
**companies are defenseless against LGE

Here in list of arguments in Quanta

2011-04-28T20:39:35Z

Josh Bradley:

Post a link to your summary of the brief you read here.

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901330223]]

[[901349446 Quanta Brief]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901471466]]

User:Josh Bradley

2011-04-28T20:08:47Z

Josh Bradley: /* Patent Exhaustion */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 28
*Discussed Monday, March 28

[[Doctrine of Equivalence Supplement: Johnston v. IVAC Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 30

[[Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 3

[[Patent Prosecution (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, April 8

===New Matter===
[[Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurka (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Monday, April 11

[[TurboCare v. General Electric Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Wednesday, April 13 through Monday, April 18

===Recent Cases===
[[i4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 20
*Discussed Wednesday, April 20

===Damages===
[[H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

[[Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

===Patent Exhaustion===
[[Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, April 29

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

===Due Monday, April 4===
[[Brief for Honeywell (JWB)]], describing why Supreme Court should rule in favor of Honeywell in Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. 523 F.3d 1304 (2008)

===Final===
Every person would be assigned a case. Two parts:
#Write quizzes on case, 3 questions
**Make sure case was read with certain degree of comprehension
**Can't pass reading just the first paragraph
#5 additional questions, each a higher level up the pyramid.
**Narrowly focused questions
**3-4 sentence answers
**Include answers

Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics (JWB)

2011-04-28T20:08:09Z

Josh Bradley: moved Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics (JWB) to Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB): misspell

#REDIRECT [[Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB)]]

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-28T20:08:09Z

Josh Bradley: moved Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics (JWB) to Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB): misspell

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-28T20:07:38Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==Reading Notes== *CAFC held that doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to method patents at all, and that it does not apply here because the sales were not authorized by ..."

User:Josh Bradley

2011-04-28T20:07:26Z

Josh Bradley:

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 28
*Discussed Monday, March 28

[[Doctrine of Equivalence Supplement: Johnston v. IVAC Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 30

[[Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 3

[[Patent Prosecution (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, April 8

===New Matter===
[[Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurka (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Monday, April 11

[[TurboCare v. General Electric Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Wednesday, April 13 through Monday, April 18

===Recent Cases===
[[i4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 20
*Discussed Wednesday, April 20

===Damages===
[[H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

[[Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

===Patent Exhaustion===
[[Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, April 29

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

===Due Monday, April 4===
[[Brief for Honeywell (JWB)]], describing why Supreme Court should rule in favor of Honeywell in Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. 523 F.3d 1304 (2008)

===Final===
Every person would be assigned a case. Two parts:
#Write quizzes on case, 3 questions
**Make sure case was read with certain degree of comprehension
**Can't pass reading just the first paragraph
#5 additional questions, each a higher level up the pyramid.
**Narrowly focused questions
**3-4 sentence answers
**Include answers

User:Josh Bradley

2011-04-27T16:32:51Z

Josh Bradley: /* Homework */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 28
*Discussed Monday, March 28

[[Doctrine of Equivalence Supplement: Johnston v. IVAC Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 30

[[Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 3

[[Patent Prosecution (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, April 8

===New Matter===
[[Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurka (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Monday, April 11

[[TurboCare v. General Electric Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Wednesday, April 13 through Monday, April 18

===Recent Cases===
[[i4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 20
*Discussed Wednesday, April 20

===Injunction===
[[H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

[[Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

===Due Monday, April 4===
[[Brief for Honeywell (JWB)]], describing why Supreme Court should rule in favor of Honeywell in Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. 523 F.3d 1304 (2008)

===Final===
Every person would be assigned a case. Two parts:
#Write quizzes on case, 3 questions
**Make sure case was read with certain degree of comprehension
**Can't pass reading just the first paragraph
#5 additional questions, each a higher level up the pyramid.
**Narrowly focused questions
**3-4 sentence answers
**Include answers

Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-27T16:28:40Z

Josh Bradley:

==The Case==
*Panduit Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, CAFC
*Appealing district court decision, which awarded Panduit, as damages for patent infringement, a reasonable royalty of 21/2%
===Background===
*1964 – Panduit sues Stahlin for infringing Panduit’s Walch patent, covering duct for wiring of electrical control systems.
*1969 – district court found claim 5 valid and infringed by the ‘Lok-Slot’ and ‘Web-Slot’ ducts made by Stahlin – affirmed on appeal, certiorari denied
**district court found Stahlin in contempt of injunction by selling ‘Tear Drop’ duct, which was imitation of ‘Lok-Slot’ – affirmed on appeal
*1971 – district court appointed a master to determine Panduit’s damages, and accepted recommendation of $44,709.60 in damages (2 ½% gross sales price)
====Patent Background====
*Panduit began to sell duct in 1955
*Caveney (Panduit president, inventor) applied for patent in 1956
*Walch, employee of GE, was first inventor of duct; assigned patent March 6, 1962
*Panduit acquired patent from GE and established policy of exercising its right to patent property
*Stahlin began to manufacture/sell ‘Lok-Slot’ and ‘Web-Slot’ ducts in 1957 and continued to do so after Walch patent and issuance to Panduit in 1962 – also cut prices 30 %
*Panduit seeks damages for lost sales from March 6, 1962 (date of first infringement) to August 7, 1970 (date of initial injunction), and profits lost due to price cut

==Ruling==
*issue is whether the master's determination of a reasonable royalty was in error
*Must determine would patent holder would have made had the infringement not occurred (35 USC 284)
*Panduit argues that the district court erred (1) in denying Panduit its lost profits due to lost sales, or, in the alternative, a 35% reasonable royalty; and (2) in denying Panduit its lost profits from its own actual sales due to Stahlin's price cut.
===Lost Profit Due to Lost Sales===
*patent owner must prove: (1) demand for the patented product, (2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes, (3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of the profit he would have made
*(1) and (3) were clearly established, and for (2) master found “evidence clearly shows the existence of acceptable non-infringing substitute ducts” – that finding was in error
**Panduit still not entitled to its lost profits because it failed to establish (4)
**District court: “there was insufficient evidence from which a fair determination could be made as to the amount of profit plaintiff would have made on such sales.”
*On the issue of Panduit's lost profits on lost sales, we affirm the district court.
===Stahlin’s Price Cut===
*master's finding that: “Any loss in (Panduit's) profits due to the price reduction was more than compensated by the gain in profits due to the increase in plaintiff's sales volume because of the price reduction. Thus, the price reduction resulted in a net increase in profit to the plaintiff.”
*We affirm, therefore, the district court's refusal to award damages on the basis of Stahlin's price cut.
===Reasonable Royalty===
*When actual damages, e. g., lost profits, cannot be proved, the patent owner is entitled to a reasonable royalty. 35 U.S.C. s 28
*Panduit was clearly damaged by having forced to share sales with Stahlin, in addition to thirteen years of litigation
**the “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement” have been found to total $44,709
*Stahlin was able to make infringing sales, as found by the master, totalling $1,788,384
*Reasonable royalty after infringement cannot be found to be equivalent to ordinary royalty negotiations
**that would almost encourage companies to infringe (they have nothing to lose)
*The amount of a reasonable royalty after infringement turns on the facts of each case, as best they may be determined
*For the 2 ½%, the master found: (1) non-infringing substitutes present, (2) Panduit could not have maintained a high price differential in the face of competition from substitute ducts, (3) both Panduit and Stahlin would have been aware of the competitive state of the market, (4) Stahlin's expert, Scofield, was “more credible and persuasive and more in line with the factual realities of this case” than Panduit's expert, (5) Stahlin's profit on gross sales of all its products for the relevant period was 4.04%, and there was “no evidence to indicate that the profit on its duct sales was significantly higher than the profit on its total sales generally.” The district court held those findings not clearly erroneous. We disagree.
====Absence of Infringements====
*At the time the patent issued, there were four competitors, but they were recognized as making and selling not substitutes but infringing ducts
*Illustrating the absence of infringements: Having begun manufacture of the duct in 1957, Stahlin continued after the patent issued in 1962, after Panduit instituted its infringement suit in 1964, and after the district court's injunction in 1969
*There is no doubt that the patented product filled a waiting need and met with commercial success due to its merits
*<blockquote>“That Stahlin's customers, no longer able to buy the patented product from Stahlin, were willing to buy something else from Stahlin, does not establish that there was on the market during the period of infringement a product which customers in general were, in the master's words, “willing to buy in place of the infringing product.””</blockquote>
* Evidence is lacking, as we have said, that acceptable substitutes were on the market on the focus-date of first infringement.
===Conclusion===
Elements necessary to the determination of a reasonable were not determined by the master in his report and cannot be discerned from the record. They therefore must be determined on remand, considering (1) the lack of acceptable noninfringing substitutes, (2) Panduit's unvarying policy of not licensing the Walch patent, (3) the future business and attendant profit Panduit would expect to lose by licensing a competitor, and (4) that the infringed patent gave the entire marketable value to the infringed duct

==Class Notes==
===Timeline===
*1955 invented
*1956 application
*1957 Stahlin began making infringing products
*1962 Panduit bought patent from GE (who won interference)
*1963 Stahlin cuts prices 30 %
*1964 Panduit sues Stahlin
*1969 another infringing product
*1970 injunction
*1978 CAFC decision
===Damages===
*Master works for court – provide accounting details for judges

H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-27T16:28:16Z

Josh Bradley:

==The Case==
*CAFC – H.H. ROBERTSON, COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNITED STEEL DECK, INC., Defendants/Appellants
*USD appealed injunction barring them from making, using, selling certain structures which were found to infringe Robertson patent (‘051 patent) in District Court of New Jersey
*Patent: entitled “Bottomless Sub-Assembly for Producing an Underfloor Electrical Cable Trench”. The invention is a concrete deck structure sub-assembly for distributing electrical wiring
**issued 3/20/1973 to Frank Fork, owned by Robertson
*charged Bouras and USD with infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14
*moved for preliminary injunction because it had been held valid and infringed by Bargar, and accused structure of Bouras was ‘same or substantially the same as those in Bargar’
**claimed harm could not be fully compensated by money damages
**District Court held that Robertson had ‘established a basis for the relief it seeks’

==Ruling==
*Injunction is “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable”
*pendente lite = ruling until a trial occurs
*Preliminary injunction is the discretion of the trial court, appellate court is just to decide whether lower court abused discretion or erred
*Applicant for a preliminary injunction against patent infringement must show: (1) a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation and (2) that the movant will be irreparably injured pendente lite if relief is not granted, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.”
===Patent Validity===
*Robertson retained the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that the attack on its patent's validity would fail
*USD and Bouras argued that all of the Fork patent claims at issue were invalid for obviousness in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that claim 2 was invalid in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 112
**obvious due to references made in Bargar and during prosecution (and not repeated here)
*district court stated that the “finding of validity of the Fork '051 patent in Bargar is persuasive evidence of validity”
*as for claim 2, it was decided that the written description was enabling of someone skilled in the art, and therefore valid under section 112
===Wiesmann Patent===
*brought as new ‘newly identified’ reference by USD, which was significant to validity
*issued June 6, 1954, Robertson argued that even if this was considered, it would not change validity result
*DC denied motion – CAFC rules that there was no error in their refusal to reopen proceedings
===Infringement===
*USD argued that the claims must be interpreted as a matter of law to exclude trenches that are only partially bottomless, like their Blue-Cross Blue Shield building
*We are not persuaded of error in the district court's construction of the term “bottomless” to apply to the “key portion” of the trench, based on the evidence before it
*We sustain the district court's conclusion that “there is a reasonable probability that Robertson will eventually establish that Bouras and USD induced infringement of the Fork '051 patent”
===Equitable Considerations===
*The magnitude of the threatened injury to the patent owner is weighed, in the light of the strength of the showing of likelihood of success on the merits, against the injury to the accused infringer if the preliminary decision is in error.
*When the movant has shown the likelihood that the acts complained of are unlawful, the preliminary injunction “preserves the status quo if it prevents future trespasses but does not undertake to assess the pecuniary or other consequences of past trespasses.”
*The district court's conclusion reflects a reasonable consideration and balance of the pertinent factors, evaluated in accordance with the established jurisprudence, and does not exceed the court's discretionary authority.

==Class Notes==
===Injunction===
*Four conditions: (1) a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation and (2) that the movant will be irreparably injured pendente lite if relief is not granted, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.”
*Pendente lite = ‘pending litigation’
*No district court is bound by decision of other one, but, in this case, they used another district court ruling as evidence to prove (1)
*USD tried to bring in another patent
*Only way to overturn injunction is to find that district court erred

Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-26T01:34:51Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==The Case== *Panduit Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, CAFC *Appealing district court decision, which awarded Panduit, as damage..."

User:Josh Bradley

2011-04-26T00:20:43Z

Josh Bradley: /* Injunction */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 28
*Discussed Monday, March 28

[[Doctrine of Equivalence Supplement: Johnston v. IVAC Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 30

[[Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 3

[[Patent Prosecution (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, April 8

===New Matter===
[[Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurka (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Monday, April 11

[[TurboCare v. General Electric Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Wednesday, April 13 through Monday, April 18

===Recent Cases===
[[i4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 20
*Discussed Wednesday, April 20

===Injunction===
[[H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

[[Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

===Due Monday, April 4===
[[Brief for Honeywell (JWB)]], describing why Supreme Court should rule in favor of Honeywell in Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. 523 F.3d 1304 (2008)

H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)

2011-04-26T00:18:53Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==The Case== *CAFC – H.H. ROBERTSON, COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNITED STEEL DECK, INC., Defendants/Appellants *USD appealed injunction barring them from making, using, se..."

User:Josh Bradley

2011-04-26T00:18:44Z

Josh Bradley: /* Notes */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 28
*Discussed Monday, March 28

[[Doctrine of Equivalence Supplement: Johnston v. IVAC Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 30

[[Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 3

[[Patent Prosecution (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, April 8

===New Matter===
[[Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurka (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Monday, April 11

[[TurboCare v. General Electric Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, April 11
*Discussed Wednesday, April 13 through Monday, April 18

===Recent Cases===
[[i4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 20
*Discussed Wednesday, April 20

===Injunction===
[[H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, April 27

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

===Due Monday, April 4===
[[Brief for Honeywell (JWB)]], describing why Supreme Court should rule in favor of Honeywell in Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. 523 F.3d 1304 (2008)

I4i Limited v. Microsoft Corporation (JWB)

2011-03-28T20:12:05Z

Josh Bradley:

==The Case==
*1985 ‘746 patent for Hilton Davis issued, disclosing improved purification process involving the “ultrafiltration” of dye through a porous membrane at pH levels between 6.0 and 9.0 (clarified pH because of “Booth” patent)
*1986 Warner-Jenkins (petitioner) created own ultrafiltration process, at pH levels of 5.0
*Respondents sued for infringement based on doctrine of equivalents
*Federal Circuit affirmed District Court ruling, holding that the doctrine of equivalents continues to exist, that the question of equivalence is for the jury to decide, and that the jury had substantial evidence from which to conclude that petitioner's process was not substantially different from the process disclosed in the '746 patent
===The Patent===
*membrane having nominal pore diameter of 5-15 Angstroms under a hydrostatic pressure of 200-400 psi, at a pH of 6.0 to 9.0
*alleged infringer: 5-15 Angstroms, at pressures of 200 to nearly 500 psi., and at a pH of 5.0
===Doctrine of Equivalence===
*Petitioner argued doctrine of equivalents is inconsistent with 1952 Patent Act
*Court feared that the doctrine conflicts with numerous holdings that a patent may not be enlarged beyond the scope of its claims. Way to reconcile is to apply doctrine to each of the individual elements of a claim, rather than to the accused product/process as a whole.
*“Prosecution history estoppel” – a surrender of matter during patent prosecution limits the recapturing of that subject matter, even if it is equivalent to the matter claimed
**This does not bar all equivalents from being claimed
*Graver Tank does not require proof of intent of infringer before applying doctrine of equivalence
*Warner-Jenkinson argued that doctrine of equivalence must be found by Court, not by jury
**Jury found ‘746 patent valid and infringed by DoE, but that Warner-Jenkinson did not intentionally infringe, so only awarded 20 % of the sought damages
**Jury also forbade Warner-Jenkinson from practicing ultrafiltration below 500 psi and below 9.01 pH
**Court of Appeals affirmed

==Ruling==
*equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case (no formula)
*Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole
*According to petitioner, any surrender of subject matter during patent prosecution, regardless of the reason for such surrender, precludes recapturing any part of that subject matter, even if it is equivalent to the matter expressly claimed
**There was no reason for the inclusion of the 6.0 pH lower limit – it is not precluded by prosecution history estoppels
**if it was added to avoid conflicting Booth patent, that’s a different story (for the Federal Court to decide, on remand)
*Just because Graver Tank references copying and piracy does not limit its application to only those cases
*Graver Tank does not require intent-based elements in the doctrine of equivalents
*The determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis.
*Prosecution history estoppel continues to be available as a defense to infringement, but if the patent holder demonstrates that an amendment required during prosecution had a purpose unrelated to patentability, a court must consider that purpose in order to decide whether an estoppel is precluded.
*Remanded to find what purpose of 6.0 lower limit was, and if it was for patentability, equivalence cannot be found

==Class Notes==
*Hilton Davis’ process ranged from pH levels of 6.0 to 9.0
*Warner-Jenkins’ alleged infringing process worked at pH levels of 5.0
*Argument in lower courts is that pH = 5 is equivalent to pH = 6
**5 is ten times more acidic than 6 (pH is logarithmic scale)
*Upper end (9.0) was to avoid infringement of prior art, but lower end (6.0) has no clear reason
**on remand, patentee will have burden of proving why lower end was established

===Petitioner: Doctrine of Equivalence===
*Statutory burden on patentee to draft his/her claims
*Allows for reissues (to fix mistakes)
*Means-plus-function claims gave them more scope so the doctrine is no longer needed

===Ruling===
*1952 Patent Act is not different than 1870 Act (Doctrine of Equivalence is nothing new)
*en banc = tried before a whole bench of judges instead of just a panel (12-15 judges rather than 3)
*way to fix: instead of considering each patent as a whole, consider element by element within each claim
**decrease ambiguity
**avoid being unbounded – but is it really unbounded?
===Doctrine of Equivalence===
*There are limitations of claims, some for patentability, some for no reason at all
*In doctrine of equivalence, if limitations were put up to avoid prior art, you cannot go past that limit for equivalence
*Because 6.0 was not clear, it was remanded

User:Josh Bradley

2011-03-28T01:51:54Z

Josh Bradley:

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 27

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)

2011-03-28T01:51:27Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==The Case== *1985 ‘746 patent for Hilton Davis issued, disclosing improved purification process involving the “ultrafiltration” of dye through a porous membrane at pH leve..."

User:Josh Bradley

2011-03-28T01:50:53Z

Josh Bradley:

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 27

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)

2011-03-25T16:25:47Z

Josh Bradley:

==The Case==
*The Linde Air Products Company brought action for patent infringement against Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company
*Judgment held that certain claims of Linde Air’s patent invalid and holding other claims valid and infringed (US District Court Northern Indiana)
*Court of Appeals reversed ruling of invalid claims
*Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated District Court ruling of invalid claims
*a rehearing was granted limited to the question of infringement of the four valid flux claims 18, 20, 22 and 23 in plaintiff's patent No. 2,043,960, relating to electric welding
===Patent===
*An electric welding process and fluxes to be used therewith

==Ruling==
*To permit imitation of a patented invention which does not copy every literal detail would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless thing.
*‘if two devices do the same work in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form or shape.’ (Union Paper-Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy)
*equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case
**Equivalency is not a formula; it’s case by case
*Unionmelt’s claims are a combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride; Lincolnweld’s composition substitutes silicates of calcium and manganese for silicates of calcium and magnesium
*Chemists testified that manganese and magnesium were similar in many of their reactions
*the accused flux is the result of imitation rather than experimentation or invention
===Dissenting Opinion===
*Court’s affirmance unquestioningly follows the findings of the trial court, this Court necessarily relies on what the specifications revealed. In so doing, it violates a direct mandate of Congress without even discussing that mandate.
*What is not specifically claimed is dedicated to the public
**Giving this patentee the benefit of a grant that it did not precisely claim is no less ‘unjust to the public’
*Manganese was disclosed in the application and then excluded from the claims. It therefore became public property.

==Class Notes==
*Doctrine of Equivalence: “if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result” it is considered equivalent (infringing)
**Without this doctrine, anyone can imitate your invention – patent system becomes nearly worthless
*Question is whether substitution of manganese for magnesium is covered by doctrine of equivalence
*Claim refers to ‘alkaline earth metals’, which magnesium is not and manganese is
===Dissent===
*Alternative substance was mentioned in patent, but not in claims (prior art involved manganese?)
*Allowing this patent to cover manganese gives a second patent for the same thing

User:Josh Bradley

2011-03-25T16:05:01Z

Josh Bradley: /* Infringement */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25
*Discussed Friday, March 25

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)

2011-03-25T16:04:34Z

Josh Bradley:

==The Case==
*CCS Fitness (Plaintiff-Appellant), Brunswick (Defendant, Appellee)
*US District Court of Colorado held that CCS Fitness’ patent on a single-component straight bar was not infringed by Life Fitness (division of Brunswick) with its multi-component curved bar
===Patent===
*elliptical trainer, reciprocating members are the bars that connect the foot pedal to the moving circle
*nowhere in CCS’ three patents does it describe the shape of the reciprocating members or whether it consists of a single-component structure only
*the drawings show a single-component straight bar, but description doesn’t specify
*district court maintained that if CCS Fitness wanted to claim a device whose reciprocating member included a curved, multi-component structure, its patents should have included an illustration that showed these embodiments
===Appeal===
* CCS Fitness appeals, arguing again that the ordinary meaning of the term “reciprocating member” – whether defined by an ordinary or a technical dictionary – covers a curved structure consisting of one or more component
* Life Fitness counters that the specification and the drawings can limit the scope of the claimed reciprocating members, since “member” is a vague term whose scope requires clarification from the specification and drawings

==Ruling==
*(1) must determine the scope and meaning of claim, (2) must compare claim to accused device to see if device includes limitations (literally or equivalents) of claimed invention
* we hold that the claim term “reciprocating member,” as used in the asserted patents, encompasses the multi-component, curved structure used by the accused exercise machines
** the term “member” denotes a beam-like structure that is “a single unit in a larger whole.” It is not limited to a straight-bar structure comprising a single component only.
** Life Fitness cannot rebut the presumption that “reciprocating member” is not restricted by § 112 ¶ 6 and thus covers more than the single-component, straight-bar structures (and their equivalents) shown in the patents' drawings
*Even though Life Fitness’ device moved the reciprocating members in a elliptical (rather than a perfect circle), the court did not identify any claim language that related to the perfect circle
*We reverse the district court's determination on summary judgment of no literal infringement, since that judgment rested on an incorrect construction of the claim term “reciprocating member.”
*We remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

==Class Notes==
*reciprocating member connects to moving circle
*Claim 9 of CCS Fitness Patent – discusses reciprocating members, never specifying single-component or straight – despite the figure showing a single straight member
*Issue of defining claim “member”
*Words in claim should always take on standard meaning unless they are specified elsewhere in application
**Figure just shows “preferred embodiment”, not the only thing covered by the patent

Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)

2011-03-24T19:44:50Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==The Case== *The Linde Air Products Company brought action for patent infringement against Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company *Judgment held that certain claims of Linde Air’..."

CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)

2011-03-24T18:51:48Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "==The Case== *CCS Fitness (Plaintiff-Appellant), Brunswick (Defendant, Appellee) *US District Court of Colorado held that CCS Fitness’ patent on a single-component straight bar..."

User:Josh Bradley

2011-03-24T18:50:46Z

Josh Bradley: /* Notes */

==Notes==
===Introduction===
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, January 21

[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 21

===Non-Obviousness===

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, January 26

[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, January 28

[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31
*also contains No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
[[Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[US v. Adams (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, January 31

[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, January 31

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 2

[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 4

===Patentable Subject Matter===

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Gottschalk v. Benson (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 7

[[Diamond v. Diehr (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, February 9

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 11

[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday February 11

[[Bilski v. Kappos (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 14

===Statutory Bars===
[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Egbert v. Lippmann (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, February 18

[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (JWB Class)]]
*Discussed Friday, February 18

[[D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21
*Discussed Monday, February 21

[[Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, February 21

[[UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23
*[[UMC Electronics Co. Patent (JWB)]] discussed Friday, February 25

[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, February 23
*Discussed Wednesday, February 23

[[Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Wednesday, March 2

[[Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Wednesday, March 2
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 4
*Discussed Friday, March 4

[[W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 7
*Discussed Monday, March 7

[[In re Carlson (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[In re Hall (JWB)]]
*Due Monday, March 21
*Discussed Monday, March 21

[[Printed Publication Bars (JWB)]]
*Discussed Wednesday, March 23

===Intellectual Property===
*[[General I.P. Information (JWB)]]
*[[Patent Claims and Infringement (JWB)]]

===Infringement===
[[CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25

[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (JWB)]]
*Due Friday, March 25

==Homework==
===Due Monday, January 24===
*Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
**Issued on June 16, 1981
*The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=_Xx1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4272847]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4272847/fulltext.html]. It is also available on Google patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=Jjo3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false].

===Due Friday, January 28===
Analysis of the [[Non-Obviousness of 4272947]], described in homework due Monday, January 24.

===Due Friday, February 4===
Arguments for [[Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB)]] for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

===Due Wednesday, February 7===
Summary of all [[NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB)]] cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

'''Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65'''
*Handbook – 10 (average 7)
**7 for a reasonable handbook
**3 for analysis/synthesis
*Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
**10 points for summary
**10 for evaluation/analysis
*History – 20 (average 14)
**15 for listing of cases and holdings
**5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
*New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
**10 points for justifying anything
**5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

===Due Wednesday, March 23===
[[Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB)]]:a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.

Printed Publication Bars (JWB)

2011-03-23T16:14:50Z

Josh Bradley: Created page with "*In re Baxter **Referenced a technical report **only only infer invention from report, arguably not described in it. **Ruling: Inference is sufficient – someone with or..."

*In re Baxter
**Referenced a technical report
**only only infer invention from report, arguably not described in it.
**Ruling: Inference is sufficient – someone with ordinary skill in the art is enabled
*In re Klopfenstein
**14-slide presentation displayed at a conference
**shown twice but not archived
**IS a printed publication because there was no ban on taking notes/copying slides
**the public at the presentation were people skilled in the art, therefore a public presentation
*Pickering v. Holman
**Patentee published experimented results (testing)
**‘Published’ has no experimental exception
*Mehl/biophile Intl Corp. v. Milgraum
**Two sources: Instruction manual (other related application), and Article on tissue damage to guinea pigs
**Laser to remove hair
**Instruction manual not a printed publication, but article was
**Manual missing an element of invention, not enabling
**Article was not explicit but is the only way to do it
*Jockmus v. Leviton
**Product catalog
**German product, written in French, US patent
**Light that looks like a candle
**Distributed to people interested in art (targeted audience)
*SRI International v. Internet Security Systems
**SRI had patent for way to detect intrusion on a network
**created two reports before critical date and patent referenced both
**One of the reports was discussed at a conference, which invalidated patent
**Second of reports was put on a server, which could only be accessed if someone pointed you to it, did not invalid patent