AME 44590 Homework, Summer 2011: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
=Due Friday 3 June 2011= | =Due Friday 3 June 2011= | ||
One would think, with it being 2011 and all, that it would be well-established what sorts of things are eligible to be patented and what sort of things are not eligible to be patented. Read the following and observe that the Supreme Court was split 5-4. | One would think, with it being 2011 and all, that it would be well-established what sorts of things are eligible to be patented and what sort of things are not eligible to be patented. Read the following and observe that, while the decision was unanimous, the Supreme Court was split 5-4 (and was actually divided in a more complicated way than that) as to the reasoning supporting the decision. | ||
* [[Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)]] | * [[Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)]] | ||
Revision as of 11:10, 2 June 2011
Due Thursday 26 May 2011
Read
- 35 USC 103
- Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, 489 U.S. 141 (1989)
- Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 (1850)
Due Friday 27 May 2011
- If you sit on the right side of the classroom, read A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)
- If you sit on the left side of the classroom, read Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)
- Everyone read Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
Due Tuesday 31 May 2011
- If you last name starts with A through M, read US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)
- If you last name starts with O through Z, read Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)
- Everyone read KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
If it is helpful to understand the case, you should also review the patent that is involved in the case.
Due Wednesday 1 June 2011
We are starting the subject of "statutory subject matter." 35 USC 101 describes the class of things that can be patented. Read the following.
Due Thursday 2 June 2011
The reading for today is two more cases on patentable subject matter. Note they are both from the CAFC, not the Supreme Court.
- Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (1992)
- State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998)
If we have time, which I think we will, we will split into two groups to have a debate on whether computer programs and business methods should be patentable. A good way to prepare for that would be to have ready what the fundamental principles are that seem to be the distinction between patentable processes and not, and also what arguments can be made that software and business methods should or should not be patentable to the extent that they promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Due Friday 3 June 2011
One would think, with it being 2011 and all, that it would be well-established what sorts of things are eligible to be patented and what sort of things are not eligible to be patented. Read the following and observe that, while the decision was unanimous, the Supreme Court was split 5-4 (and was actually divided in a more complicated way than that) as to the reasoning supporting the decision.
