Difference between revisions of "Class Notes 2/21/2011 (Fernando Rodriguez)"
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "==Elizabeth Case== :Charges *Not novel- other previous art (British patents) *Public use # Mil-dam road: 1848 # Privately owned tall road for 6 years (test) # Application was i...") |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Result: Patent held not in public use | :Result: Patent held not in public use | ||
:He was testing to ensure it worked | :He was testing to ensure it worked | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Boat Case== | ||
+ | Lough constructed 6 prototypes, 1 for himself, 3 for close friends, 2 friends who owned a marina installed in display boat and that was sold (Laugh didnt know), he won the trial sued Brunswick (CAFC won JMOL(Judgement on matter of law) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Experiment | ||
+ | :There was a dissent as he thought that he was not a company so more casual experimentation is ok | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Not Experiment | ||
+ | *No documentation | ||
+ | *No progress reports | ||
+ | *Number not justified as experiment | ||
+ | *No secrecy | ||
+ | *Control | ||
+ | |||
+ | Policy | ||
+ | #Public expecction of free use | ||
+ | #Quick disclossure | ||
+ | #Reasonable time to judge value (market testing) | ||
+ | #Can't get the system |
Latest revision as of 14:22, 21 February 2011
Elizabeth Case
- Charges
- Not novel- other previous art (British patents)
- Public use
- Mil-dam road: 1848
- Privately owned tall road for 6 years (test)
- Application was issued 1854 reissued 1867
- Evidence of Experimentation
- Keep records
- No profit
- confidentiality
- Control
- "He was there ever day" observation
- No other way to test
- Time scale needed for testing
- Result: Patent held not in public use
- He was testing to ensure it worked
Boat Case
Lough constructed 6 prototypes, 1 for himself, 3 for close friends, 2 friends who owned a marina installed in display boat and that was sold (Laugh didnt know), he won the trial sued Brunswick (CAFC won JMOL(Judgement on matter of law)
- Experiment
- There was a dissent as he thought that he was not a company so more casual experimentation is ok
- Not Experiment
- No documentation
- No progress reports
- Number not justified as experiment
- No secrecy
- Control
Policy
- Public expecction of free use
- Quick disclossure
- Reasonable time to judge value (market testing)
- Can't get the system