|
|
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
| |
|
| [[Web page for Engineering Differential Equations: Theory and Applications, Springer 2010]] | | [[Web page for Engineering Differential Equations: Theory and Applications, Springer 2010]] |
|
| |
| <big>'''Intellectual Property for Engineers: ESTEEM Reading Course, Spring 2010'''</big>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| =ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES=
| |
|
| |
| *[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]]
| |
| *[[Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, 464 F.3d 1286, (2006)]]
| |
| *[[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]]
| |
| *[[Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961)]]
| |
| *[[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (1992)]]
| |
| *[[Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1994)]]
| |
| *[[Atlas Powder v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 750 F2d 1569 (1984)]]
| |
| *[[Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)]]
| |
| *[[Bonito Boats. v. Thunder Craft, 489 U.S. 141 (1989)]]
| |
| *[[Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (1990)]]
| |
| *[[Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)]]
| |
| *[[Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881))]]
| |
| *[[Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company, 97 U.S. 126 (1877)]]
| |
| *[[Filmtec Corp. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (1991)]]
| |
| *[[Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)]]
| |
| *[[Gould v. Hellwarth, 472 F2d 1383 (1973)]]
| |
| *[[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]]
| |
| *[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)]]
| |
| *[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 (1850) ]]
| |
| *[[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375 (1986)]]
| |
| *[[In Re Rouffet]]
| |
| *[[In Re Bilski]]
| |
| **[[In Re Bilski, Dky concurring opinion]]
| |
| **[[In Re Bilski, Newman dissenting opinion]]
| |
| **[[In Re Bilski, Mayer dissenting opinion]]
| |
| **[[In Re Bilski, Rader dissenting opinion]]
| |
| *[[In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560 (1995)]]
| |
| *[[In re Hall (full text)]]
| |
| *[[In re Kahn, CAFC 04-1616 (2006)]]
| |
| *[[J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001)]]
| |
| *[[Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 (1999)]]
| |
| *[[KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)]]
| |
| *[[Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005)]]
| |
| *[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]]
| |
| *[[Metabolit Laboratories, Inc. and Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354 (2004)]]
| |
| *[[Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc., 153 F.2d 516 (1946)]]
| |
| *[[Microsoft Corp v. At&T Corp.]]
| |
| *[[Monsanto v. Good F.Supp.2d, WL 1664013 (D.N.J.) (2003)]]
| |
| *[[Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation (full text)]]
| |
| *[[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics: full text]]
| |
| *[[Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics]]
| |
| *[[Philips Electric Co. v. Thermal Industries, Inc. (full text)]]
| |
| *[[Quanta Computers Inc v. LG Electronics (full text)]]
| |
| *[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]
| |
| *[[South Corp. v. US]]
| |
| *[[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]
| |
| *[[South Corp. v. US 690 F.2d 1368 (1982)]]
| |
| *[[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998)]]
| |
| *[[Traffix Devices, Inc. vs. Marketing Displays, Inc.]]
| |
| *[[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]]
| |
| *[[US v. Adams (full text)]]
| |
| *[[U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)]]
| |
| *[[Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. American Gym Recreational & Athletic Equipment Corporation, Inc. (full text)]]
| |
| *[[Warner-Jenkinson Company v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 US 17 (1997)]]
| |
| **[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief]]
| |
| **[[Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Respondent Brief]]
| |
| *[[Winner International Royalty Co. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340 (2000)]]
| |
|
| |
| =[[INTRODUCTION]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[INTRODUCTION]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *The main purpose for obtaining a patent is ''economic''.
| |
| *It grants the exclusive right to ''make, use or sell'' the invention for a limited period of time.
| |
| *The governing law is Title 35 of the United States Code (35 USC).
| |
| *The governing regulations are from Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR).
| |
| *The law is federal, so patent cases are resolved in the federal court system:
| |
| **district courts;
| |
| **circuit courts;
| |
| **the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), a special court for patent cases; and,
| |
| **the Supreme Court.
| |
| *The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) processes patent applications.
| |
| *Patents last for 20 years from the date the application is filed with the PTO.
| |
| *Patents have the attributes of personal property.
| |
| *The foundation of the federal government's authority to create a patent system is in the constitution. The purposes is explicitly economic, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
| |
| *Other forms of intellectual property
| |
| **copyright;
| |
| **trademarks; and,
| |
| **trade secrets.
| |
|
| |
| =[[NONOBVIOUSNESS]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[NONOBVIOUSNESS]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
|
| |
| *This is perhaps the most difficult factual patent issue. In addition to meeting the novelty requirements of 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103 requires that the claimed invention as a whole must have been nonobvious "at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
| |
| *There is a lot of historical confusion regarding this standard. Basically, it is a notion of something being meeting some type of sufficient inventive standard or nontriviality.
| |
| *To determine this, there are three fundamental lines of inquiry:
| |
| **the scope and content of the prior art;
| |
| **the differences between the prior art and claims at issue; and,
| |
| **the level of ordinary skill in the art.
| |
| *Secondary considerations include:
| |
| **a long-felt but unsatisfied need met by the invention;
| |
| **appreciation by those versed in the art that the need existed;
| |
| **substantial attempts to meet this need;
| |
| **commercial success of the invention;
| |
| **replacement in the industry by the claimed invention;
| |
| **acquiescence by the industry;
| |
| **''teaching away'' by those skilled in the art;
| |
| **unexpectedness of the results; and,
| |
| **disbelief or incredulity on the part of industry with respect to the new invention.
| |
|
| |
| =[[INFRINGEMENT]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[INFRINGEMENT]]
| |
|
| |
| =[[THE PATENT DOCUMENT]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[THE PATENT DOCUMENT]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *A patent has several parts:
| |
| **specification: describes the invention;
| |
| **claims: delineates the ownership rights;
| |
| **drawings: not required, but if they are included then any element included in the claims must be shown in the drawings; and,
| |
| **other miscellaneous parts.
| |
| *Interpreting claims: claims are said to ''read on'' another device.
| |
| *The doctrine of equivalence, prevents something from being patented that only has minor alterations from the prior art.
| |
| *The date of the invention
| |
| **''reduction to practice'';
| |
| **''diligence'' requirement.
| |
| *The ''file wrapper''.
| |
|
| |
| =[[NOVELTY]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[NOVELTY]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *Specified in 35 USC 102.
| |
| *Fundamentally: an invention must be ''new''.
| |
| *Section 102 basically defines in a technical way what it means to not be new:
| |
| **Events prior to invention
| |
| ***known or used by others in the US
| |
| ***patented or in a printed publication in another country
| |
| **Events one year before filing the patent application
| |
| ***patented or in a printed publication anywhere (''in this or a foreign country'')
| |
| ***in public use or on sale in the US
| |
| **Other bars
| |
| *The applicant must be the inventor (not the employer)
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *Literal Infringement
| |
| *The Doctrine of Equivalents
| |
|
| |
| =[[UTILITY]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[UTILITY]]
| |
|
| |
| =[[PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER]]
| |
|
| |
| Can computer programs, algorithms, laws of nature, life forms, plants, ''etc.'' be patented. In particular, are the following patentable:
| |
|
| |
| * Plants
| |
| * Algorithms and Computer Programs
| |
| * Scientific Facts?
| |
|
| |
| In a recent case
| |
| * State Street (1998)
| |
| the CAFC substantially broadened the subject matter of section 101 to include such things as methods of doing business, etc.
| |
|
| |
| =[[FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC PRIORITY]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC PRIORITY]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *Priority in general
| |
| *Foreign priority
| |
| *International applications
| |
| *Domestic priority
| |
| *Provisional applications
| |
|
| |
| =[[THE PATENT APPLICATION]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[THE PATENT APPLICATION]]
| |
|
| |
| Outline:
| |
| *The Disclosure
| |
| *The Claims
| |
| *Other Sections
| |
| *New Matter
| |
| *The Examination Process
| |
|
| |
| =[[INVENTOR ELIGIBILITY]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[INVENTOR ELIGIBILITY]]
| |
|
| |
| [[GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972): full text]]
| |
|
| |
| [[GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981): (full text)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005): (full text)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. and Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (doing business as LabCorp): the CAFC case (full text)]]
| |
|
| |
| =[[ANTICIPATION]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[ANTICIPATION]]
| |
|
| |
| =[[PRIOR ART]]=
| |
| This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: [[PRIOR ART]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Pfaff v. Wells Electronics: full text]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation (full text)]]
| |
|
| |
| [[Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation]]
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Justice clipart, copyright [http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/ FCIT.]
| |
