Difference between revisions of "EB: Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==The Situation== *Mahurkar invents new catheter that created less puncture area than those of the prior art. *Vas-Cath sued Mahurkar claiming his patent is invalid as anticipat...")
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
**Canadian Application (1982) - problem (because 1 year prior to US utility filing)
 
**Canadian Application (1982) - problem (because 1 year prior to US utility filing)
 
**US Utility Application (19984)
 
**US Utility Application (19984)
*Mahurkar wants the design application filing date to represent his date of invention, but in order for that to happen he must have had adequate "written description" of the patent. Section 112 requires full disclosure - do drawings count?
+
*Mahurkar wants the design application filing date to represent his date of invention, but in order for that to happen he must have had adequate "written description" of the patent. Section 112 requires full disclosure - do drawings count? Is the design application good enough to meet requirements of 112?
 +
**District court says no, design patent with drawings only is not good enough of a "written description" - on summary judgement
 +
**CAFC says there are issues that need to be tried, so they remanded the summary judgement
 +
 
 +
*Main concept: type of disclosure is required by 112

Revision as of 11:04, 11 April 2011

The Situation

  • Mahurkar invents new catheter that created less puncture area than those of the prior art.
  • Vas-Cath sued Mahurkar claiming his patent is invalid as anticipated under 102 - Mahurkar had (more than one year prior) filed a Canadian patent describing the invention
  • Time line:
    • US Design Application (1981)
    • Canadian Application (1982) - problem (because 1 year prior to US utility filing)
    • US Utility Application (19984)
  • Mahurkar wants the design application filing date to represent his date of invention, but in order for that to happen he must have had adequate "written description" of the patent. Section 112 requires full disclosure - do drawings count? Is the design application good enough to meet requirements of 112?
    • District court says no, design patent with drawings only is not good enough of a "written description" - on summary judgement
    • CAFC says there are issues that need to be tried, so they remanded the summary judgement
  • Main concept: type of disclosure is required by 112