User:Kyle Tennant: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "== Case 1: Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, Inc. == As I understand it, the case is as follows. Bonito Boats developed a process for duplicating fiberglass boat hulls without filin..."
 
 
(44 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Case 1: Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, Inc. ==
== Case Reading Summaries ==
As I understand it, the case is as follows. Bonito Boats developed a process for duplicating fiberglass boat hulls without filing for a patent. Some time later, the state of Florida passed a law prohibiting the production and sale of unpatented boat hulls duplicated in this way. Bonito Boats then sued Thunder Craft, claiming that Thunder Craft had duplicated Bonito Boats' hulls in this way and sold them. The Florida courts and finally the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Thunder Craft should not be forced to pay anything to Bonito Boats because the Florida statute conflicted with federal patent laws, which have supremacy over state law. The Supreme Court gave the following reasons:
====The Purpose of Patents====
[[Case 1: Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, Inc. (1989)]]<br />
====Novelty and Nonobviousness====
[[Case 2: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)]]<br />[[Case 3: A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950)]]<br />[[Case 4: Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (1955)]]<br />[[Case 5: Graham v. John Deere (1966)]]<br />[[Case 6: US v. Adams (1966)]]<br />[[Case 7: Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (1969)]] <br />[[Case 8: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (2007)]]<br />
====Patentable Subject Matter====
[[Case 9: Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)]]<br/>[[Case 10: Diamond v. Diehr (1981)]]<br/>[[Case 11: Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (1992)]]<br/>[[Case 12: State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (1998)]]<br/>[[Case 13: Bilski v. Kappos (2010)]]
====Statutory Bars====
[[Case 14: Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)]]<br/>[[Case 15: Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (1946)]]<br/>[[Case 16: D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (1983)]]<br/>[[Case 17: Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (1877)]]<br/>[[Case 18: Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (1996)]]<br/>[[Case 19: UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (1987)]]<br/>[[Case 20: Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics (1998)]]<br/>[[Case 21: Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (1939)]]<br/>[[Case 22: Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1999)]]<br/>[[Case 23: Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (1948)]]<br/>[[Case 24: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (1983)]]<br/>[[Case 25: In re Carlson (1992)]]<br/>[[Case 26: In re Hall (1986)]]
====Infringement====
[[Case 27: CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (2002)]]<br/>[[Case 28: Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)]]<br/>[[Case 29: Warner-Jenkinson Company v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)]]<br/>[[Case 30: Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991)]]<br/>[[Case 31: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co. (2001)]]<br/>[[Case 32: i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010)]]<br/>[[Case 33: H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (1987)]]<br/>[[Case 34: Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (1978)]]


(a) Patent laws serve to promote creative activity by balancing public right and private monopoly. The patent system works only because of the free trade of unpatented, publicly known designs and concepts. The Florida statute effectively stifles this free system by assigning patent rights to unpatented conceptions.
====Class Notes====
[[Notes from 3/9/2011]]<br/>
[[Notes from 3/11/2011]]


(b) The Florida statute is incompatible with federal policies which favor free trade of ideas which are not worthy of patents. Not only are patent rights implicitly given to unpatented boat hulls and their components, but the patent rights given are not tied into the natural limits set by patent law; basically, the restrictions placed on the boat hulls and their parts do not expire.
== Homeworks ==
 
[[Homework 1: Clutch And Brake Assembly and Production Method]] <br /> [[Homework 2: Supplementary Patents and a Discussion of Patentability]] <br />[[Homework 3: Examining Nonobviousness]]<br />[[Homework 4: Defining Nonobviousness]] <br />[[Homework 5: Nonobviousness Paper]]<br/>[[Homework 6: Patentable Subject Matter Paper]]<br/>[[Homework 7: In re Hall Supplementary Case]]<br/>[[Homework 8: Clear Example of Doctrine of Equivalents]]<br/>[[Homework 9: In-Class Case Study]]<br/>Homework 10: [[Quanta Brief: Tennant]]<br/>
(c) The Florida law defends unpatented boat hulls against reverse engineering, a right granted exclusively to federally patented concepts. Reverse engineering can be a catalyst for creative development.
 
(d) In and of itself, federal patent code does not disallow the opportunity for states to establish their own creative rights and intellectual property laws. However, those laws must not conflict with the federal patent code, as is the case here.
 
Dissent in this case arose from claims that the Florida statute only prohibited one kind of molding; the item itself, i.e., the boat hull, was still in the public domain. However, because the boat hull had been on the market for six years, the design had become unpatentable and was regarded as if a patent had been issued and expired. Furthermore, the entire public was prohibited from a form of reverse engineering a product which was clearly in the public domain; that the law only prohibited one kind of reverse engineering is immaterial due to its implications. Reverse engineering of unpatented items leads to advances in the technology.
 
The main point of patent law seems to be this: there is a constant tension between fully developing technology to advance our society and providing motivation for individual entities to undertake this development. In other words, nobody wants to build a better mousetrap if they won't profit from it. Patent law strives to promote the development of new mousetraps while allowing those who do so to believe in the exclusivity of their design.

Latest revision as of 14:41, 29 April 2011

Case Reading Summaries

The Purpose of Patents

Case 1: Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, Inc. (1989)

Novelty and Nonobviousness

Case 2: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)
Case 3: A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950)
Case 4: Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (1955)
Case 5: Graham v. John Deere (1966)
Case 6: US v. Adams (1966)
Case 7: Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (1969)
Case 8: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (2007)

Patentable Subject Matter

Case 9: Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
Case 10: Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
Case 11: Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (1992)
Case 12: State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (1998)
Case 13: Bilski v. Kappos (2010)

Statutory Bars

Case 14: Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)
Case 15: Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (1946)
Case 16: D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (1983)
Case 17: Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (1877)
Case 18: Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (1996)
Case 19: UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (1987)
Case 20: Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics (1998)
Case 21: Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu (1939)
Case 22: Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1999)
Case 23: Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (1948)
Case 24: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (1983)
Case 25: In re Carlson (1992)
Case 26: In re Hall (1986)

Infringement

Case 27: CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (2002)
Case 28: Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
Case 29: Warner-Jenkinson Company v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
Case 30: Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991)
Case 31: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co. (2001)
Case 32: i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010)
Case 33: H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc. (1987)
Case 34: Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. (1978)

Class Notes

Notes from 3/9/2011
Notes from 3/11/2011

Homeworks

Homework 1: Clutch And Brake Assembly and Production Method
Homework 2: Supplementary Patents and a Discussion of Patentability
Homework 3: Examining Nonobviousness
Homework 4: Defining Nonobviousness
Homework 5: Nonobviousness Paper
Homework 6: Patentable Subject Matter Paper
Homework 7: In re Hall Supplementary Case
Homework 8: Clear Example of Doctrine of Equivalents
Homework 9: In-Class Case Study
Homework 10: Quanta Brief: Tennant

Retrieved from "https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Kyle_Tennant&oldid=4997"