AME 44590 Homework, Summer 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.

• 35 USC 101
• Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
• Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

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.

• Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)

Due Tuesday 7 June 2011

We are going to start on 'statutory bars' which is section 102. Both of these cases pre-date the 1952 patent statute, but elucidate the principles embodied therein. Read:

• 35 USC 102
• Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)
• Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc., 153 F.2d 516 (1946)
• D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144 (1983)

Due Wednesday 8 June 2011

• Read Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company, 97 U.S. 126 (1877)
• Read Lough v. Brunswick Corp., 86 F.3d 1113 (1996)
• Go to the Google patent page and find a patent that seems to interest you. Download and read it. Be prepared to describe it in class. Read the claims too -- part of the discussion will be generally what it is and how it works (the description of the invention) versus what was actually claimed. There are a couple requirements: a) it must be a US patent, b) it must be issued between 1980 and 2000 and c) it must be at least 4 pages long with at least 3 pages of text. The reason for b) is that we may look at later patents which cite it and consider obviousness in light of it.
• Look up Bilski on Westlaw. Scroll to the bottom of the case where it lists all of the briefs that were filed. Pick one and read it. Use your best effort to choose one that no one else will read, e.g., if you dicuss it with your roomates before you select one, you should choose one they did not choose. You don't have to read it with the same focus on detail that you read the cases, but read it well enough to be able to list and summarize what the main arguments are. Pay particular attention to any arguments that did not come up in class.\

Due Thursday 9 June 2011

Read the next three cases:

• UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S., 816 F.2d 647 (1987)
• Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics, 525 U.S. 55 (1998)
• Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (1939)

Be sure to consult the patents too. I would observe that the last time I taught the course, not a single person in the class could explain to me how the device described in the patent in the UMC case actually worked, which was something I did not like.

Due Tuesday 14 June 2011

• Look up the Electric Storage Battery Co case, 307 US 5, on Westlaw. There are 4 briefs listed at the end of the case.
  • If your last name starts with A-G read the Reply Brief for Respondents. (Feb. 27, 1939)
  • If your last name starts with H-N read the Reply Brief for Petitioner. (Feb. 7, 1939)
  • If your last name starts with O-Si read the Brief for Respondents (Jan. 28, 1939)
  • If your last name starts with Sj-Z read the Brief for Petitioner (Jan. 1939)
• Read Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315 (1999)
• Read Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 167 F.2d 423 (1948)