============================================================= Patent Law William Fisher version 2013.9.30 ============================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 III. Entitlements ------------------------------------------------------------- 1.1 Infringement 1.1.1 Statutory Provisions 1.1.1.1 USA 1.1.1.1.1 35 USC 271(a) 1.1.1.1.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent 1.1.1.2 Germany 1.1.1.2.1 Section 9 1.1.1.2.1.1 patents “have the effect that the patentee alone shall be authorized to use the patented invention” and all others are forbidden from any of the following activities without the patentee’s consent: “making,” “using,” “offering,” “putting on the market,” or “importing or stocking” a patented product, or, for patented processes, from “using” or “offering for use” the process or “using,” “offering,” “putting on the market,” or “importing or stocking” a product made using the patented process 1.1.1.3 Japan 1.1.1.3.1 Articles 2, 68 1.1.1.3.1.1 patents provides their holders with the “exclusive right to work” the invention by way of “producing,” “using,” “transferring,” “leasing,” “offering to transfer or lease,” “importing” or "exporting" the patented technology when it is a product 1.1.1.3.1.2 For patented processes, the patentee has the exclusive rights to work the invention by way of “use” of the process and the acts of “using,” “transferring,” “leasing,” “offering to transfer or lease,” “importing” or "exporting" of the product produced by the process 1.1.1.4 UK 1.1.1.4.1 section 60(1) 1.1.1.4.1.1 “a person infringes a patent for an invention” when he or she, without the patentee’s permission, “makes,” “uses,” “disposes of,” “offers to dispose of,” or “imports” a patented product, or, for patented processes, “uses” or “offers for use” the process or “keeps,” “uses,” “disposes of,” “offers to dispose of,” or “imports” a product “obtained directly by means of that process.” 1.1.2 Claim Construction 1.1.2.1 Substance 1.1.2.1.1 Sources 1.1.2.1.1.1 Intrinsic 1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Claims 1.1.2.1.1.1.2 Specification 1.1.2.1.1.1.3 Drawings 1.1.2.1.1.1.4 File wrapper 1.1.2.1.1.2 Extrinsic 1.1.2.1.1.2.1 dictionaries 1.1.2.1.1.2.2 Non-cited prior art 1.1.2.1.1.2.3 Expert testimony 1.1.2.1.1.2.3.1 technical experts 1.1.2.1.1.2.3.2 patent attorney 1.1.2.1.1.2.3.3 patentee 1.1.2.1.2 Canons 1.1.2.1.2.1 Read claims through eyes of PHOSITA 1.1.2.1.2.1.1 for criticism, see Golden (2008) 1.1.2.1.2.2 Plain meaning 1.1.2.1.2.2.1 “[W]ords will be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless it appears that the inventor used them differently.” 1.1.2.1.2.2.2 Miken Composites (CAFC 2008) 1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1 facts 1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.1 Claim 1: A bat, comprising: a hollow tubular bat frame having a circular cross-section; and an insert positioned within the frame, the insert having a circular cross-section, the insert having first and second ends adjoining the tubular frame, the insert being separated from the tubular frame by a gap forming at least part of an annular shape along a central portion between said first and second ends, the frame elastically deflectable across the gap to operably engage the insert along a portion of the insert between the insert first and second ends. 1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2 Claim 18: A bat, comprising: a hollow tubular bat frame having a small-diameter handle portion and a large-diameter impact portion having a circular cross-section with an inner and outer diameter; at least one insert having a substantially circular cross-section with an outer diameter less than the inner diameter of the frame impact portion, the insert being held within the impact portion; and the impact portion being inwardly elastically deflectable such to establish a tight interference fit between the insert and the impact portion. 1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2 holding 1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 "insert" = something put inside, not a layer 1.1.2.1.2.3 “Every patentee may be his own lexicographer.” 1.1.2.1.2.3.1 explicit definitions 1.1.2.1.2.3.2 implicit definitions 1.1.2.1.2.3.2.1 e.g., consistent use in specification of "board" as wood confines meaning of "wood" in claim 1.1.2.1.2.3.2.1.1 Nystrom (CAFC 2005) 1.1.2.1.2.3.3 disclaimers 1.1.2.1.2.3.3.1 in specification or prosecution, patentee may disclaim a broad interpretation of a term 1.1.2.1.2.3.3.1.1 Cultor (CAFC 2000) 1.1.2.1.2.4 Guidance may be sought from the specification only if a claim recites a term in need of definition 1.1.2.1.2.5 Guidance may be sought from extrinsic evidence only if intrinsic evidence is ambiguous 1.1.2.1.2.5.1 Vitronics 1.1.2.1.2.6 Subject matter disclosed but not claimed is dedicated to the public 1.1.2.1.2.6.1 Unique Concepts (CAFC 1991) 1.1.2.1.2.7 Avoid claim interpretations that lead to redundancy (claim differentiation) 1.1.2.1.2.8 Generous interpretation of pioneering inventions 1.1.2.1.2.8.1 ''A pioneer ... patent ... must be given a broad and liberal construction which should not be limited to the precise device ... shown.'' 1.1.2.1.2.9 Interpret an ambiguous claim so as to “secure to the patentee his actual invention” 1.1.2.1.2.9.1 “[A] claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation” 1.1.2.1.2.9.1.1 Vitronics; Elekta Instrument (2000) 1.1.2.1.2.10 Interpret an ambiguous claim against the patentee 1.1.2.1.2.10.1 cf. adhesion contracts 1.1.2.1.2.11 Don't read into a claim limitations from the specification 1.1.2.1.2.12 Interpret an ambiguous claim so as to preserve its validity 1.1.2.1.2.12.1 e.g., Wright (1910) 1.1.2.1.2.12.2 now seen as "last resort" 1.1.2.1.2.12.2.1 MBO Labs (CAFC 2007) 1.1.2.1.2.12.3 competing canon: invalidate ambiguous claim as failing definiteness or enablement requirement 1.1.2.1.2.12.3.1 Liebel Flarsheim (CAFC 2007) 1.1.2.1.2.13 "substantially as described" = surplusage 1.1.2.1.3 History 1.1.2.1.3.1 The Road to Phillips 1.1.2.1.3.2 Phillips 1.1.2.1.3.2.1 use of dictionaries 1.1.2.1.3.3 for current developments, see Claim Construction Project 1.1.2.1.4 Means + Function Elements 1.1.2.1.4.1 examples 1.1.2.1.4.1.1 "means whereby said rudder is caused to present to the wind that side thereof nearest the side of the aeroplane having the smaller angle of incidence and offering the least resistance to the atmosphere" 1.1.2.1.4.1.1.1 Wright (1910) 1.1.2.1.4.2 112, para 6 1.1.2.1.4.2.1 construed to cover only the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof 1.1.2.2 Procedure 1.1.2.2.1 Claim construction = Question of Law; no 7th amendment right 1.1.2.2.1.1 Markman (1996) 1.1.2.2.2 Markman Hearings 1.1.2.2.2.1 possible placement 1.1.2.2.2.1.1 before close of discovery 1.1.2.2.2.1.2 after close of discovery, before trial (85%) 1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1 combined with summary judgment proceedings 1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2 separate from summary judgment proceedings 1.1.2.2.2.1.3 at conclusion of presentation of evidence, before jury instructions 1.1.2.2.3 Standard of Review 1.1.2.2.3.1 de novo 1.1.2.2.3.1.1 Cybor (1998) 1.1.2.2.3.2 reversal rates (Schwartz data) 1.1.3 Types of Infringement 1.1.3.1 Literal 1.1.3.1.1 all-elements rule 1.1.3.1.1.1 element = any limitation found in the claim language 1.1.3.2 Equivalents 1.1.3.2.1 element-by-element approach 1.1.3.2.1.1 content of P's product is irrelevant 1.1.3.2.2 state of mind 1.1.3.2.2.1 bad intent on part of defendant is unnecessary 1.1.3.2.3 PHOSITA knowledge 1.1.3.2.3.1 a factor in the analysis is whether PHOSITA, at the time of the infringement, knew of the interchangeability of P's and D's components 1.1.3.2.3.1.1 Warner (1997) 1.1.3.2.4 Limitations 1.1.3.2.4.1 prior art 1.1.3.2.4.1.1 Wilson (CAFC 1990) 1.1.3.2.4.2 material disclosed but not claimed 1.1.3.2.4.2.1 Johnson (CAFC 2002) 1.1.3.2.4.3 Prosecution History Estoppel 1.1.3.2.4.3.1 applies to any change designed to meet one of the substantive requirements of patent law 1.1.3.2.4.3.1.1 Festo 1.1.3.2.4.3.2 burden on patentee to show some other reason for change 1.1.3.2.4.3.3 Flexible standard, not "complete bar"; doesn't extend to: 1.1.3.2.4.3.3.1 equivalent unforseeable at time of application 1.1.3.2.4.3.3.2 rationale for the amendment bears only tangential relationship to the equivalent 1.1.3.2.4.3.3.3 patentee could not reasonably have been expected to describe the equivalent 1.1.4 Forbidden Actions 1.1.4.1 Make 1.1.4.1.1 combination patents 1.1.4.1.1.1 make = components are brought together into one operable assembly 1.1.4.1.1.2 assembly overseas 1.1.4.1.1.2.1 Deepsouth Packing 1.1.4.1.1.2.2 271(f)(1) 1.1.4.1.1.2.2.1 Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer 1.1.4.1.2 joint infringement 1.1.4.1.2.1 ordinarily, patentee must prove that a single legal entity practiced each element of the claim -- either literally or through equivalents 1.1.4.1.2.2 if some elements are practiced by entity #1 and some by entity #2 (e.g., customers), patentee can prevail on joint infringement theory, but only if entity #1 "controls or directs" the conduct of entity #2 1.1.4.1.2.2.1 BMC Resources (CAFC 2007) 1.1.4.1.2.2.2 Miniauction (CAFC 2008) 1.1.4.1.2.2.3 Akamai v. Limelight (CAFC 2010) 1.1.4.1.3 repair/reconstruction 1.1.4.1.3.1 repairing a patented product that one has a right to use is not infringing 1.1.4.1.3.1.1 rationale: tacit term of the original sale of the patented product 1.1.4.1.3.2 repairing a patented product that one does not have a right to use is infringing 1.1.4.1.3.2.1 rationale: no underlying tacit license is available 1.1.4.1.3.2.2 repair perpetuates the underlying unlawful use 1.1.4.1.3.2.2.1 Aro (1964) 1.1.4.1.3.3 reconstructing a patented product that one has a right to use is infringing 1.1.4.1.3.3.1 rationale: not tacit term of the original sale of the patented product 1.1.4.2 Use 1.1.4.2.1 Of products 1.1.4.2.1.1 Use of patented products made without authority by someone else is infringement 1.1.4.2.1.1.1 patent rights include “right to put into service any invention” – Bauer (1913); Flat Slabs (1920) 1.1.4.2.1.1.2 Aro Mfgr. (US 1964) 1.1.4.2.1.1.3 NTP v. RIM (CAFC 2005) 1.1.4.2.1.2 Borderline situations 1.1.4.2.1.2.1 Testing is "use" 1.1.4.2.1.2.1.1 Waymark (CAFC 2001) 1.1.4.2.1.2.2 Demonstration at a trade show may not be "use" 1.1.4.2.1.2.2.1 Medical Solutions (CAFC 2008) does not resolve the issue 1.1.4.2.1.2.3 Mere possession of a patented machine is not "use", in absence of "threatened or contemplated" use 1.1.4.2.1.2.3.1 Calif. Table Grape Comm. (ED Cal. 2007) 1.1.4.2.1.2.4 Continued use of patented product made and sold before patent grant is infringement 1.1.4.2.1.2.4.1 Olssen (1938); Coakwell (Ct Cl 1967) 1.1.4.2.1.2.5 Use of a patented product for purposes other than those contemplated by patentee is infringement 1.1.4.2.1.2.5.1 "all uses" theory 1.1.4.2.1.3 Early cases hold sales demonstrations = use (now covered by “offer to sell”) 1.1.4.2.2 Of processes 1.1.4.3 Sell 1.1.4.3.1 first-sale doctrine 1.1.4.3.1.1 presumed that sale of the patented product to consumers carries with it right to resell 1.1.4.3.1.2 see Exhaustion Doctrine, below 1.1.4.4 Offer to sell 1.1.4.4.1 foreign sales 1.1.4.4.1.1 Quality Tubing (SD Tex 1999): offer to sell, made in U.S. is not infringement where neither manufacture nor delivery will occur in U.S. 1.1.4.4.1.2 Rotec Industries (CAFC 2000): dictum: offer to sell, made in U.S., is infringement, regardless of location of manufacture and delivery 1.1.4.5 Import 1.1.4.5.1 importation of products made overseas with patented process 1.1.4.5.1.1 271(g): Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. 1.1.5 Secondary Liability 1.1.5.1 Contributory Infringement 1.1.5.1.1 271(c): Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. 1.1.5.1.2 scienter 1.1.5.1.2.1 necessary that the defendant knew that the combination for which he was supplying a part was both patented and infringing 1.1.5.1.2.1.1 Aro (1964) (5/4) 1.1.5.1.2.1.2 but see Sandisk (ND Cal 2000) (MD 916): necessary only that the defendant knew of the patent and of the activity alleged to be infringing 1.1.5.1.2.1.3 rare exception to general pattern of strict liability 1.1.5.1.3 defense: substantial noninfringing uses 1.1.5.1.3.1 Bard (CAFC 1990) 1.1.5.1.3.2 cf. Sony; Grokster 1.1.5.1.4 Licensee triangles 1.1.5.2 Inducement 1.1.5.2.1 271(b) “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer”첤갾ߐĀ짠⋝ 1.1.5.2.2 Examples 1.1.5.2.2.1 distributing brochures advertising sale of infringing equipment; 1.1.5.2.2.2 instructing in the use of patented process; 1.1.5.2.2.3 purchase of articles made through unauthorized use of a patented process; 1.1.5.2.2.4 indemnifying infringer; 1.1.5.2.2.5 inducing licensee to breach license agreement 1.1.5.2.2.6 inaction is not inducement 1.1.5.2.2.6.1 e.g., failure to take action to prevent corporate affiliates from engaging in infringing behavior is not inducement 1.1.5.2.2.6.1.1 Tegal (CAFC 2001) 1.1.5.2.3 possible scienter requirement 1.1.5.2.3.1 currently before the US SCt in Global-Tech v. SEB 1.1.5.2.3.2 issue: is it necessary that the defendant is both aware of the patent and know that the conduct at issue is infringing? 1.1.5.2.3.3 oral argument, Feb. 23, 2011 1.2 Defenses and Limitations 1.2.1 Reverse Equivalents 1.2.1.1 Original Doctrine 1.2.1.1.1 Westinghouse (1898) MD 885 1.2.1.2 CAFC expresses increasing skepticism 1.2.1.2.1 Scripps (CAFC 1991) 1.2.1.2.2 Tate Access Floors (2002) 1.2.2 Experimental Use 1.2.2.1 USA 1.2.2.1.1 Common-law exemption 1.2.2.1.1.1 Origin: dicta in Whittemore (1813) 1.2.2.1.1.2 Constriction 1.2.2.1.1.2.1 Roche Products (CAFC 1984) 1.2.2.1.1.2.2 Madey (CAFC 2002) 1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1 no protection for university research 1.2.2.1.2 Regulatory-review exemption 1.2.2.1.2.1 Special rules for drugs and medical devices 1.2.2.2 Germany 1.2.2.2.1 section 11.1 1.2.2.2.1.1 “the effect of a patent shall not extend to acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes.” 1.2.2.2.1.2 a narrow, private-use exemption 1.2.2.2.2 section 11.2 1.2.2.2.2.1 “the effect of a patent shall not extend to […] acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.” 1.2.2.2.2.2 construed to support a broad "experimenting on" exemption 1.2.2.2.2.2.1 Clinical Trials I 1.2.2.2.2.3 construed to support a reasonably broad regulatory-review exemption 1.2.2.2.2.3.1 Clinical Trials II 1.2.2.2.2.3.2 however, this does not extend to testing for the purpose of introducing a generic version at the expiration of the patent term 1.2.2.2.2.4 does not support an "experimenting with" (research tool) exemption 1.2.2.2.3 section 11.2b 1.2.2.2.3.1 recently adopted regulatory review exemption, encompassing generics 1.2.2.2.3.2 implementation of Article 10(6) of EC Directive 2004/27 1.2.2.3 UK 1.2.2.3.1 60(5)(a) 1.2.2.3.1.1 an activity that otherwise “would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if […] it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial.” 1.2.2.3.1.2 narrow private-use exemption 1.2.2.3.2 60(5)(b) 1.2.2.3.2.1 an activity that otherwise “would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if […] it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention.” 1.2.2.3.2.2 construed to support a broad experiment-on exemption 1.2.2.3.2.2.1 including commercial activity 1.2.2.3.2.3 no research tool exemption 1.2.2.3.3 60(5)(i) 1.2.2.3.3.1 recently adopted regulatory review exemption, encompassing generics 1.2.2.3.3.2 implementation of Article 10(6) of EC Directive 2004/27 1.2.2.3.3.3 broader than the analogous German provision 1.2.2.3.3.3.1 Syed: specifically, § 60(5)(i) seems to provide an exemption to 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.1 (1) producers of generic replications of chemical drugs or close substitutes of biologics, as well, as perhaps, of rival innovator follow-ons, 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.2 (2) when the replications or substitutes are for drugs already approved by any EU member state, 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.3 (3) for activities involved in “conducting a study, test or trial which is necessary for and is conducted with a view to” or “required for” obtaining regulatory approval, 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.4 (4) when such activities use a patented invention. 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.4.1 broader coverage than merely drugs 1.2.2.3.3.3.1.4.2 in this respect, like the US 1.2.2.4 Japan 1.2.2.4.1 implicit exemption for "private" or "familial" uses of the patented technology 1.2.2.4.1.1 implicit in Article 68 1.2.2.4.1.2 likely does not extend to university research 1.2.2.4.2 article 69(1) 1.2.2.4.2.1 a patentee’s exclusive rights “shall not be effective against the working of the patented invention for experimental or research purposes.” 1.2.2.4.2.2 seems to support a general "experimenting on" exemption 1.2.2.4.2.3 seems not to support a general research-tool exemption 1.2.2.4.2.3.1 US scholarship to the contrary notwithstanding 1.2.2.4.2.4 recently (1999) construed to support a regulatory-review exemption for drugs 1.2.3 Inequitable Conduct 1.2.4 Misuse 1.2.5 Exhaustion 1.2.5.1 Traditional Rules: broad scope for exhaustion 1.2.5.1.1 Domestic 1.2.5.1.1.1 Principle: authorized sale of a patented product to consumers carries with it right to use and resell that product 1.2.5.1.1.2 Cases 1.2.5.1.1.2.1 Adams v. Burke (US 1873) 1.2.5.1.1.2.1.1 patent on improved coffin lids 1.2.5.1.1.2.1.2 patentee limits geographic area in which assignee may sell coffins 1.2.5.1.1.2.1.3 held: No permissible limits on use of lawfully purchased products 1.2.5.1.1.2.2 General Talking Pictures (US 1938) 1.2.5.1.1.2.2.1 patentee of amplifiers used in projectors granted license to ATC, but only to make and sell projectors to homes, not theatres 1.2.5.1.1.2.2.2 held: patentee could prevail in infringement suit against D, who had notice of the restriction but bought amplifiers for use in theatres 1.2.5.1.1.2.3 Univis (US 1942) 1.2.5.1.1.2.3.1 price-fixing scheme -- in which patentee on bifocals sought to set prices charged by (a) manufacturer, (b) wholesalers, and (c) retailers -- held unlawful 1.2.5.1.1.2.3.2 General principle: “[T]he authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold. . . . Sale of a lens blank by the patentee or by his licensee is thus in itself both a complete transfer of ownership of the blank, which is within the protection of the patent law, and a license to practice the final stage of the patent procedure.” 1.2.5.1.1.2.3.2.1 “The reward [Univis] was demanded and received is for the article and the invention which it embodies . . . . He has thus parted with his right to assert the patent monopoly with respect to it and is no longer free to control the price at which it may be sold either in its unfinished or finished form.” 1.2.5.1.1.2.3.2.2 "double-dipping" rationale 1.2.5.1.2 International 1.2.5.1.2.1 exhaustion applies to sales of goods overseas unless patentee forbids reimportation when products are first sold 1.2.5.1.2.1.1 Curtiss Aeroplane, 266 F. 71 (CA2 1920) 1.2.5.2 1986-2008: Contraction 1.2.5.2.1 Domestic 1.2.5.2.1.1 exhaustion can be overridden by contract or notice 1.2.5.2.1.1.1 Mallinkrodt (CAFC 1992) 1.2.5.2.1.1.1.1 "single use" notice on medical device 1.2.5.2.1.1.1.2 held: patentee has infringement claim against firm that refurbishes the devices in violation of the notice 1.2.5.2.1.1.1.3 Univis distinguished on the ground that this restriction did not violate antitrust laws or other public policies 1.2.5.2.1.1.2 R Braun Med. (CAFC 1997) 1.2.5.2.1.1.2.1 conditional sales do not result in exhaustion of patentee's right to control uses of the product 1.2.5.2.2 International 1.2.5.2.2.1 Jazz Photo (CAFC 2002) 1.2.5.2.2.1.1 appears to adopt national exhaustion & reject international exhaustion 1.2.5.2.2.1.2 but ruling may be limited to products used and repaired prior to reimportation 1.2.5.2.2.2 Fuji Photo (CAFC 2005) 1.2.5.2.2.2.1 more clearly reject international exhaustion principle 1.2.5.2.2.2.2 rationale: foreign sales cannot be "authorized" under a U.S. patent 1.2.5.2.2.2.2.1 because that would imply extraterritorial application of U.S. patents 1.2.5.3 2008-present: Expansion 1.2.5.3.1 Quanta 1.2.5.3.1.1 Facts 1.2.5.3.1.1.1 LGE held both product patents on chips and process patents on making them 1.2.5.3.1.1.2 LGE granted Intel a license to make chips -- with a restriction: 1.2.5.3.1.1.2.1 purchasers of chips may not combine them with non-Intel parts 1.2.5.3.1.1.3 Quanta bought chips from Intel and combined with non-Intel parts 1.2.5.3.1.2 CAFC: 1.2.5.3.1.2.1 Exhaustion not applicable to process patents 1.2.5.3.1.2.2 Conditional sales; no exhaustion 1.2.5.3.1.3 Holding 1.2.5.3.1.3.1 Exhaustion is applicable to process patents 1.2.5.3.1.3.2 An authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item 1.2.5.3.1.3.3 use restrictions therefore invalid against purchasers 1.2.5.3.1.4 Issues left open: 1.2.5.3.1.4.1 application to sales overseas? 1.2.5.3.1.4.2 contract remedies still available? 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.1 potential limitations: 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.1.1 privity problems 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.1.2 preemption 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.1.3 more limited remedies 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.2 potential advantages: 1.2.5.3.1.4.2.2.1 fine tune using "public policy" limitations 1.2.5.3.1.4.3 can downstream behavior by purchasers retroactively render initial sales "unauthorized"? 1.2.5.3.1.4.3.1 see Hungar memo 1.2.5.3.1.4.4 may patentee restrict licensee's freedom to sell products embodying product or process patents (as opposed to restricting post-sale uses)? 1.2.5.3.1.4.4.1 answer appears yes 1.2.5.3.1.4.4.2 can expect many restrictive licenses in the future to take this form 1.2.5.3.2 Aftermath of Quanta 1.2.5.3.2.1 Broadcom v. Qualcomm (filed 2008) 1.2.5.3.2.1.1 Qualcomm licenses chipset makers -- with a restriction: 1.2.5.3.2.1.1.1 chipsets may only be incorporated into handsets by handset manufacturers who pay Qualcomm a royalty 1.2.5.3.2.1.2 Broadcom asserts patent misuse; exhaustion 1.2.5.3.2.1.3 settled -- as part of comprehensive settlement -- in 2009 1.2.5.3.2.2 Transcore (CAFC 2009) 1.2.5.3.2.2.1 unconditional covenant not to sue is the functional equivalent of unconditional license 1.2.5.3.2.2.2 surprisingly expansive interpretation of "estoppel" doctrine to enlarge the set of patents covered by a prior settlement/covenant 1.2.5.3.2.2.2.1 unclear whether this will affect treatment of the two forms of permission in bankruptcy 1.2.5.3.2.3 Static Control (EDKy 2009) 1.2.5.3.2.3.1 Quanta impliedly overruled Mallinckrodt 1.2.5.3.2.3.2 single-use restrictions no longer enforceable 1.2.5.3.2.4 LGE v. Hitachi (NDCa 2009) 1.2.5.3.2.4.1 unconditional foreign sale of a product licensed under a United States patent exhausts the patent holder's rights 1.2.5.3.2.4.2 repudiate Jazz Photo as inconsistent with logic of Quanta 1.2.5.3.2.4.3 Issues left open: 1.2.5.3.2.4.3.1 May the resultant impediment to geographic price discrimination be avoided through restrictions on the licensee's right to sell? 1.2.5.3.2.4.3.2 May the impediment be avoided by dividing patent holding companies geographically? 1.2.5.3.2.5 Fujifilm v. Benun (CAFC 2010) 1.2.5.3.2.5.1 Quanta did not eliminate the territorial requirement for exhaustion 1.2.5.3.2.5.2 semble: US continues to adhere to principle of national exhaustion 1.2.5.4 Impact in Practice 1.2.5.4.1 within EU 1.2.5.4.1.1 price differentials among drugs remain large, despite regional exhaustion 1.2.5.4.1.1.1 over 50% have differentials of at least 1:1.5 (from cheapest to most expensive markets) 1.2.5.4.1.1.2 see Kyle 2007 1.2.5.4.1.1.3 see also Fink for limited empirical studies 1.2.5.4.1.2 strategies used by firms to reduce parallel trade 1.2.5.4.1.2.1 different dosage forms and strengths in different countries 1.2.5.4.1.2.2 "rationing" 1.2.5.4.1.2.2.1 i.e., restricting supply in poorer countries 1.2.5.4.1.2.2.2 dubious legality, but common 1.2.5.4.1.2.3 variations in brand names and packaging 1.2.5.4.1.2.3.1 raises transportation and advertising costs 1.2.5.4.1.2.4 see Kyle 2009 1.2.6 Prior User Right 1.2.6.1 defendant, who uses an invention commercially in US more than 1 year prior to filing (or disclosure) by patentee, may continue to do so 1.2.6.1.1 generalize the prior-user defense that has been available for BMPs since 1999 1.2.6.2 35 USC 273 1.2.6.2.1 "[Person] acting in good faith, commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use" 1.2.6.3 effective date: 2011/9/16 1.2.6.3.1 applies to all suits filed on or after that date 1.2.6.4 Likely impact 1.2.6.4.1 previously, inventor of a new process, considering relying on trade-secret protection instead of patent protection, ran a risk: someone else would invent and patent the process, forcing first innovator to stop 1.2.6.4.2 reduction of that risk (to one-year interval) will increase marginally reliance on trade secrecy, rather than patents 1.3 Duration 1.3.1 Default Term 1.3.1.1 Presentation 1.3.2 Special Rules for Drugs 1.3.2.1 Presentation 1.3.3 Reverse-Payment Settlements 1.4 Licenses and Assignments 1.4.1 Estoppel 1.4.2 Permissible Duration of License Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IV. Remedies ------------------------------------------------------------- 2.1 Injunctions 2.1.1 statutory basis: 35 USC 283 2.1.1.1 The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title [35 USCS §§ 1 et seq.] may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable. 2.1.2 Permanent 2.1.2.1 Phase I (prior to formation of Federal Circuit) 2.1.2.1.1 Public interest invoked reasonably often to deny injunctions 2.1.2.1.2 Examples 2.1.2.1.2.1 Milwaukee (CA7 1934) -- public health 2.1.2.1.2.2 Nerney (CA2 1936) -- large sunk costs by infringer 2.1.2.1.2.3 Vitamin Technologists (CA9 1944) -- public health 2.1.2.1.2.4 Foster (CA2 1974) -- noncompetitor patentee 2.1.2.2 Phase II (1982-2006) 2.1.2.2.1 strong presumption in favor of injunctive relief 2.1.2.2.2 Injunction occasionally denied if result would be to hurt public health or welfare 2.1.2.2.3 very rarely denied if only economic injuries would result from grant 2.1.2.2.3.1 Polaroid (1985) 2.1.2.2.3.2 but cf. Atari (ND CA 1994) 2.1.2.3 Ebay (2006) 2.1.2.3.1 facts 2.1.2.3.1.1 patent 5,845,265 2.1.2.3.1.1.1 Abstract: A method and apparatus for creating a computerized market for used and collectible goods by use of a plurality of low cost posting terminals and a market maker computer in a legal framework that establishes a bailee relationship and consignment contract with a purchaser of a good at the market maker computer that allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good thereby to allow the purchaser to speculate on the price of collectibles in an electronic market for used goods while assuring the safe and trusted physical possession of a good with a vetted bailee. 2.1.2.3.1.1.2 full patent 2.1.2.3.2 holding 2.1.2.3.2.1 apply traditional rules of equity in determining whether to grant injunctions in patent cases 2.1.2.3.2.1.1 (a) the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; 2.1.2.3.2.1.2 (b) monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for that injury; 2.1.2.3.2.1.3 (c) the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and 2.1.2.3.2.1.4 (d) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction 2.1.2.3.3 concurrences 2.1.2.3.3.1 Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg 2.1.2.3.3.1.1 exercise of discretion should take into account that injunctions traditionally had issued in vast majority of successful patent suits 2.1.2.3.3.2 Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Breyer 2.1.2.3.3.2.1 denying injunctions may be appropriate when: 2.1.2.3.3.2.1.1 plaintiff is a patent troll 2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2 patent covers one component of complex product 2.1.2.3.3.2.1.3 patent in question is a business method patent, often of suspect validity 2.1.2.3.3.2.1.3.1 "In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test." 2.1.2.4 Phase III (2006 to present) 2.1.2.4.1 Estimates of the percentage of post-eBay cases in which injunctions are granted range from 68% to 77% 2.1.2.4.1.1 Factors courts rely on: 2.1.2.4.1.1.1 Does P practice the invention? 2.1.2.4.1.1.1.1 trolls are disfavored 2.1.2.4.1.1.1.2 but universities and small inventors who license, rather than practice are not penalized 2.1.2.4.1.1.1.3 *this dovetails with the circumstances governing the advisability of licensing, from a business standpoint -- see IPStrategy 2.1.2.4.1.1.2 evidence of actual harm? 2.1.2.4.1.1.3 are P & D competitors? 2.1.2.4.1.1.4 P's history of licensing patent 2.1.2.4.1.1.5 laches 2.1.2.4.1.1.6 public interest in health or in product diversity 2.1.2.4.1.1.6.1 but cf. Amgen v. Roche, finding that the public interest points toward preserving robust incentives for pharmaceutical research 2.1.2.4.1.2 cases in which injunctions are denied typically result in order of "running royalty" 2.1.2.4.1.2.1 Who sets the rate? 2.1.2.4.1.2.1.1 sometimes set by court 2.1.2.4.1.2.1.2 sometimes left to jury 2.1.2.4.1.2.1.3 CAFC advocates ordering parties to negotiate a RR 2.1.2.4.1.2.2 How is the rate set? 2.1.2.4.1.2.2.1 sometimes by extrapolating from pre-judgment royalty 2.1.2.4.1.2.2.1.1 but CAFC discourages reliance on pre-judgment royalty 2.1.2.4.1.2.2.2 some courts look to Georgia-Pacific factors 2.1.2.4.1.2.2.3 considerable uncertainty and confusion on this issue 2.1.2.4.2 Robert Bosch (CAFC 2011) 2.1.2.4.2.1 finding of validity and infringement does not create presumption of irreparable harm 2.1.2.4.2.2 but irreparable harm is established where D is a competitor, corroded P's market, and is financially unstable 2.1.2.4.2.2.1 even though there are more than two competitors in the market 2.1.2.4.2.2.2 and even though P is much larger than D 2.1.3 Preliminary 2.1.3.1 Traditional Doctrine 2.1.3.1.1 1. Likelihood of success on the merits 2.1.3.1.1.1 helps if the patent was previously held valid in an infringement action against another defendant 2.1.3.1.1.2 if defendant raises a substantial question concerning patent validity, no PI 2.1.3.1.2 2. Irreparable harm if relief is denied 2.1.3.1.2.1 if likelihood of success is high, this will be presumed 2.1.3.1.2.2 factors that disfavor patentee: 2.1.3.1.2.2.1 long delay in bringing suit 2.1.3.1.2.2.2 patentee had engaged in a pattern of licensing 2.1.3.1.3 3. Balance of Hardship 2.1.3.1.3.1 almost always deemed to favor patentee 2.1.3.1.3.2 e.g., Polaroid (1985) 2.1.3.1.3.2.1 grant of PI would cost $200m and put 4000 employees out of work 2.1.3.1.4 4. Impact on the Public Interest 2.1.3.1.4.1 primary application: public interest in enforcement of patents 2.1.3.2 Impact of Ebay 2.1.3.2.1 case law, May 15, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2007 2.1.3.2.1.1 8 decisions granting preliminary injunctions 2.1.3.2.1.2 12 decisions denying preliminary injunctions 2.1.3.2.1.3 source: "Fire of Genius" 2.2 Damages 2.2.1 Statutory basis 2.2.1.1 35 USC 284 2.2.1.1.1 Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. 2.2.1.1.2 When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) 2.2.1.2 35 USC 287(a) 2.2.1.2.1 Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat.", together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice. 2.2.1.2.2 not applicable to processes 2.2.2 Compensatory Damages 2.2.2.1 goal: return patentee to position she would have occupied in absence of infringement 2.2.2.2 Lost profits from sale of patented products. Patentee must prove: 2.2.2.2.1 1. demand for patented product 2.2.2.2.1.1 presumed from act of infringement 2.2.2.2.2 2. absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes 2.2.2.2.2.1 infringer escapes if she can identify another product with similar price and characteristics, in eyes of consumers 2.2.2.2.2.2 infringer escapes if she can show that she was ready and able to produce a noninfringing substitute, but didn't for cost reasons 2.2.2.2.2.2.1 Grain Processing (1999) 2.2.2.2.2.3 alternatively, patentee may show that he had stable share of multi-supplier market 2.2.2.2.2.3.1 State Industries (1989) 2.2.2.2.2.4 if patentee fails on these fronts, because he had previously granted licenses to competitors, may fall back on reasonable royalty option 2.2.2.2.2.4.1 Pall (1995) 2.2.2.2.3 3. Patentee had the capability to exploit the demand 2.2.2.2.4 4. Amount of profit patentee would have made 2.2.2.2.4.1 lost revenues 2.2.2.2.4.1.1 lost sales x pre-infringement prices 2.2.2.2.4.2 minus incremental costs 2.2.2.2.4.2.1 exclude all fixed costs 2.2.2.2.4.2.1.1 R&D 2.2.2.2.4.2.1.2 management 2.2.2.2.4.3 plus effect of "price erosion" 2.2.2.3 consequential damages 2.2.2.3.1 "Entire Market Value" rule 2.2.2.3.1.1 lost profits from sale of components or supplies 2.2.2.3.2 if corrosion of sales of unpatented products that competed with infringing product was reasonably forseeable, P can recover lost profits 2.2.2.3.2.1 Rite-Hite (1985) -- tort theory 2.2.2.3.2.2 Nies dissent: P does not have an exclusive property right in market for unpatented products 2.2.2.3.3 not decline in stock price 2.2.2.3.3.1 Rite-Hite 2.2.2.3.4 increased advertising costs? 2.2.2.3.5 increased expenditures on customer care? 2.2.3 Reasonable Royalty 2.2.3.1 legal standard 2.2.3.1.1 royalty that would have been negotiated on the day infringement started 2.2.3.1.1.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2 factors 2.2.3.2.1 industry custom 2.2.3.2.1.1 customary profits allowed licensees in the market at the time 2.2.3.2.1.1.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2.1.2 use of MFN clauses 2.2.3.2.1.2.1 Stickle (1983) 2.2.3.2.2 availability of acceptable noninfringing substitutes 2.2.3.2.2.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2.2.2 cf. standards for compensatory damages 2.2.3.2.3 losses associated with forfeiture of monopoly 2.2.3.2.3.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2.4 forseeable losses of profits from sales of related products 2.2.3.2.4.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2.4.2 Transworld Mfg. (CAFC 1984) 2.2.3.2.4.3 cf. standards for compensatory damages 2.2.3.2.5 "doing justice to patentee" often tacitly leads to premium 2.2.3.2.5.1 Panduit 2.2.3.2.5.2 Stickle (CAFC 1983) 2.2.3.2.6 Georgia Pacific factors: 2.2.3.2.6.1 1. The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty. 2.2.3.2.6.2 2. The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit. 2.2.3.2.6.3 3. The nature and scope of the license 2.2.3.2.6.3.1 exclusive or nonexclusive 2.2.3.2.6.3.2 restricted or nonrestricted in terms of territory or to whom the product may be sold 2.2.3.2.6.4 4. The licensor's established policy and marketing program to maintain his patent monopoly 2.2.3.2.6.4.1 e.g., by not licensing others to use the invention 2.2.3.2.6.4.2 e.g., by granting licenses under special conditions 2.2.3.2.6.5 5. The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee 2.2.3.2.6.5.1 e.g., whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business 2.2.3.2.6.5.2 e.g., whether they are inventor and promoter 2.2.3.2.6.6 6. Derivative or convoyed sales 2.2.3.2.6.6.1 The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; 2.2.3.2.6.6.2 the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of his non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales. 2.2.3.2.6.7 7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license. 2.2.3.2.6.8 8. The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity. 2.2.3.2.6.9 9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results. 2.2.3.2.6.10 10. The nature of the patented invention 2.2.3.2.6.10.1 the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; 2.2.3.2.6.10.2 and the benefits to those who have used the invention. 2.2.3.2.6.11 11. The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use. 2.2.3.2.6.12 12. The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions. 2.2.3.2.6.13 13. The value added to the infringer's product by the invention 2.2.3.2.6.13.1 The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer. 2.2.3.2.6.14 14. The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 2.2.3.2.6.15 15. The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement 2.2.3.2.6.15.1 that is, the amount which a prudent licensee -- who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention -- would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license. 2.2.3.3 nonfactors 2.2.3.3.1 infringer's actual profits 2.2.3.3.2 likelihood that patent would be upheld 2.2.3.4 "Analytical approach" 2.2.3.4.1 infringer's anticipated net profit margin 2.2.3.4.2 minus industry standard profit 2.2.4 Prejudgment Interest 2.2.4.1 from date of last infringement to date of payment 2.3 Provisional Remedies 2.3.1 for period between publication of the application and grant of the patent 2.3.2 "reasonable royalty" 2.3.3 available retroactively after the grant 2.3.4 requirements 2.3.4.1 invention as claimed in final grant is "substantially identical" to invention as claimed in published application 2.3.4.2 infringer had "actual notice" of published application 2.4 Penalties 2.4.1 Enhanced Damages 2.4.1.1 up to three times actual damages 2.4.1.2 precondition: clear and convincing evidence that infringement was willful 2.4.1.2.1 Recklessness standard (Seagate 2007) 2.4.1.2.1.1 "[W]e overrule the standard set out in Underwater Devices and hold that proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness. 2.4.1.2.1.2 "Because we abandon the affirmative duty of due care, we also reemphasize that there is no affirmative obligation to obtain opinion of counsel" 2.4.1.2.1.3 "[T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent" 2.4.1.2.1.4 "The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry. If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer" 2.4.1.2.1.5 Adverse inferences may not be drawn from: 2.4.1.2.1.5.1 invocation of attorney-client privilege 2.4.1.2.1.5.2 failure to obtain opinion of counsel 2.4.1.2.2 Aftermath of Seagate 2.4.1.2.2.1 some district courts persist in allowing juries to take into account failure to get an opinion of counsel as one factor in determining willfulness 2.4.1.2.2.1.1 see Matthews 2010 2.4.1.3 If the infringement is found to be willful, court has discretion to enhance damages 2.4.1.3.1 multiple factors considered 2.4.1.3.1.1 Read Corp. (CAFC 1992) 2.4.1.3.1.2 Microsoft (CAFC Dec. 22, 2009) 2.4.1.3.2 failure to obtain opinion of counsel is relevant again at this stage 2.4.1.3.2.1 e.g., I-Flow Corp (SDCal. 2010) 2.4.1.3.2.1.1 $1M enhancement, primarily because of failure to obtain opinion of counsel 2.4.1.3.2.2 Finjan Software (DDel. 2009) 2.4.1.4 bottom line: best defense remains reasonable reliance on opinion of counsel 2.4.1.4.1 conclusory opinions have no value 2.4.1.4.1.1 Datascope (CAFC 1989) 2.4.1.4.2 submission of opinion of "opinion counsel" results in waiver of attorney-client privilege work-product protection for "all communications on the same subject matter, as well as any documents memorializing attorney-client communications" 2.4.1.4.3 but not waivers for trial counsel 2.4.2 Attorney Fees 2.4.2.1 available in "exceptional cases" 2.4.2.1.1 willful infringement 2.4.2.1.2 inequitable conduct in patent prosecution 2.4.2.1.3 litigation misconduct 2.4.2.2 only available to a "prevailing party" 2.4.3 Costs 2.4.3.1 presumption that prevailing party gets costs 2.5 Declaratory Judgment 2.5.1 Available to putative infringer if he can demonstrate that "the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” 2.5.1.1 Medimmune (SCt) 2.5.1.2 not necessary to show that the putative infringer has a reasonable apprehension that the patentee will file suit 2.5.1.3 it helps (though may not be essential) for putative infringer to show that he has made meaningful preparation toward potential infringing activities 2.5.1.3.1 Cat Tech (CAFC 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------- 3 V. Patent Law in Action ------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1 Rates of Patent Grants 3.1.1 in USA continues to rise 3.2 Patent Litigation in US 3.2.1 rate of filings continues to increase slowly 3.2.2 number of defendants increasing faster 3.2.3 leveling off of suits brought by nonpracticing entitities (NPEs) 3.2.3.1 but recent initiatives by Intellectual Ventures may change this ------------------------------------------------------------- 4 II. Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------- 4.1 A. Utility 4.1.1 statutory basis: 35 USC 101 4.1.1.1 “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 4.1.2 Aspects 4.1.2.1 No Practical Application 4.1.2.1.1 General Principle: very low threshold 4.1.2.1.1.1 not necessary that it be commercially viable or superior to alternatives 4.1.2.1.1.2 not necessary that a compound have received FDA approval 4.1.2.1.1.2.1 In re Brana (CAFC 1995) 4.1.2.1.2 Special Cases 4.1.2.1.2.1 Chemical compounds (or processes for producing them) whose function is uncertain 4.1.2.1.2.1.1 Brenner v. Manson (US 1966) 4.1.2.1.2.2 ESTs 4.1.2.1.2.2.1 2001 Utility guidelines 4.1.2.1.2.2.2 In re Fisher (CAFC 2005) 4.1.2.2 Inoperable 4.1.2.2.1 no patents for inventions that violate generally accepted scientific principles 4.1.2.3 Immoral 4.1.2.3.1 Old rule: no patents for inventions "injurious to the morals, health, or good order of society" 4.1.2.3.1.1 Bedford v. Hunt (CCDMass 1817) (Justice Story) 4.1.2.3.2 Modern rule: immorality or deceptiveness not relevant 4.1.2.3.2.1 contrast EPC 53(a) 4.2 B. Disclosure 4.2.1 statutory basis: 35 USC 112 4.2.1.1 The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 4.2.1.2 The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention 4.2.2 Aspects 4.2.2.1 Enablement 4.2.2.1.1 The description must be sufficient to enable a PHOSITA to make and use all of the embodiments of the invention claimed in the patent 4.2.2.1.2 Wands factors 4.2.2.1.2.1 Quantity of experimentation necessary 4.2.2.1.2.2 Amount of guidance provided by the patent 4.2.2.1.2.3 Presence in the patent of working examples 4.2.2.1.2.4 Nature of the invention 4.2.2.1.2.5 State of prior art 4.2.2.1.2.6 Skill of PHOSITAs 4.2.2.1.2.7 Predictability of the art 4.2.2.1.2.8 Breadth of claims 4.2.2.1.3 Temporal Paradox 4.2.2.1.4 problems and illustrations 4.2.2.2 Written Description 4.2.2.2.1 Often invoked when applicant amends application 4.2.2.2.1.1 Pertinent provisions 4.2.2.2.1.1.1 Section 120: amended patent application gets priority date of original patent application 4.2.2.2.1.1.2 Section 132: amendment may not introduce new matter into the disclosure 4.2.2.2.1.2 Original disclosure must show that the applicant was then "in possession" of the invention eventually claimed 4.2.2.2.1.2.1 Vas-Cath (CAFC 1991) 4.2.2.2.1.2.2 Hyatt (CAFC 1998) 4.2.2.2.1.2.3 Purdue Pharma (2000) 4.2.2.2.1.2.4 Courts are more lax when patent is “pioneering” 4.2.2.2.2 Recently applied by CAFC outside of the extension context: applicant must describe the invention itself, not just how to make and use it (enablement) 4.2.2.2.2.1 Lilly (1998) 4.2.2.2.2.2 Gentry Gallery (1998) 4.2.2.2.2.3 Rochester (CAFC en banc 2004) 4.2.2.2.3 Definite Claims 4.2.2.2.3.1 problems 4.2.2.3 Best Mode 4.2.2.3.1 Old Rules 4.2.2.3.1.1 2-step analysis 4.2.2.3.1.1.1 Step 1: Did the individual inventor consider a particular way of implementing the invention superior? 4.2.2.3.1.1.2 Step 2: Did the application adequately enable that particular way? 4.2.2.3.1.2 Identifying the best mode 4.2.2.3.1.2.1 Not essential that the best mode be singled out (typically as the "preferred embodiment") 4.2.2.3.1.2.2 but EA Poe strategy may violate the requirement 4.2.2.3.1.3 Refinements 4.2.2.3.1.3.1 no need to disclose a preferred manufacturing component or method if the patent does not cover it 4.2.2.3.1.3.1.1 Eli Lilly (CAFC 2001) 4.2.2.3.1.3.2 no need to disclose an intermediate if it has no effect on properties of final product 4.2.2.3.1.3.2.1 Bayer (CAFC 2002) 4.2.2.3.2 New Rules 4.2.2.3.2.1 failure to disclose best mode is no longer a defense (35 USC 382), but can be used by PTO to reject an application 4.2.3 disaggregation by technology 4.2.3.1 Lemley & Burk hypothesis 4.2.4 Policy Basis 4.2.4.1 Compel patentee to reveal information that will facilitate further technical progress 4.2.4.2 Provide competitors guidance in what they may and may not do 4.2.4.3 Prevent patentee from locking up a disproportionate territory 4.2.4.4 Prevent patentee from extending the term of the patent 4.2.4.5 Reinforce first-to-invent principle by denying priority dates to persons who have not yet fully achieved the invention 4.3 C. Novelty 4.3.1 Novel 4.3.1.1 USA 4.3.1.1.1 Old Rules 4.3.1.1.1.1 First to invent 4.3.1.1.1.1.1 35 USC 102(g) 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless... (g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 applies only to interference proceedings 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 each party claims the same invention 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Today, inventive activity in any WTO member country counts 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 In US prior to 12/8/93 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 In US or Nafta country prior to 1/1/96 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 In US, Nafta country or WTO country after 1/1/96 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2 (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 applies even outside of interference proceedings 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 limitations 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 applies only to inventions "in this country" 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2 applies only to "inventions" -- i.e., requires reduction to practice 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 principal effect: 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.1 permit backdating of prior art references to date of invention, rather than date available to the public 4.3.1.1.1.1.1.3 In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. 4.3.1.1.1.1.2 The patent is awarded to the first person to invent a particular invention 4.3.1.1.1.1.2.1 Interference Scenarios 4.3.1.1.1.1.3 Presumptive Date of Invention = date of reduction to practice 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1 (1) Actual 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 Physical embodiment 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 RTP of a gene is isolating it (Amgen (1991)) 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.2 Complete embodiment 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1 Equivalents don't count 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.3 Testing sufficient to demonstrate utility and success 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.3.1 Unless their efficacy is obvious (Manville (1990)) 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.2 (2) Constructive 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.2.1 Patent application 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.1 including provisional applications 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.2 Date of the US application governs, not date of prior foreign application 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.2.2 Not enabling publication 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.3 Need corroborating evidence 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.3.1 "rule of reason" test for sufficiency 4.3.1.1.1.1.3.3.1.1 Brown (CAFC 2002) 4.3.1.1.1.1.4 Backdating 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1 Conception 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.1 Formulation of the complete means of solving a problem sufficiently detailed that a PHOSITA could RTP without further research 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1 (Mahurkar (1996) 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.1.2 Conception of gene requires envisioining its "detailed chemical structure" 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.1.2.1 Amgen (1991) 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.1.2.2 Fiers (1993) 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.2 Idea must encompass all parts of the invention 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.3 Question of law, not fact 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.4 Need corroborating evidence 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.4.1 "rule of reason" test for sufficiency 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.1.4.1.1 Brown (CAFC 2002) 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.2 Diligence 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.2.1 Actual activity or legitimate excuse during entire critical period 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.2.1.1 Examples of excuses 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.2.2 For constructive RTP, applicant charged with diligence or neglect of his attorney 4.3.1.1.1.1.4.2.3 Need corroborating evidence 4.3.1.1.1.1.5 Forfeiting the benefit of a reduction to practice 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1 Abandonment, Concealment or Suppression 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.1 type 1: actively hide your invention from then public 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.1.1 commercialization of the output of the invention, while concealing the invention = bad 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.1.1.1 "non-informing public use" 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.1.2 commercialization of an object embodying the invention, which is impossible to reverse engineer = OK 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.1.2.1 "hidden public use" 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.2 type 2: substantial delay in filing for a patent 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.2.1 Peeler (CCPA 1976) 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.2.2 legitimate excuse for delay: working on refining the invention, and refinements are reflected in ultimate patent application 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.3 change of heart 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.3.1 concealment, followed by renewed efforts to obtain a patent: applicant can claim priority date of renewal of effort 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.3.1.1 Paulik (CAFC 1985) 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.1.3.2 renewed activity in response to appearance of a competitor is bad 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2 Derivation 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.1 35 USC 102(f) 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.1.1 a person shall be entitled to a patent unless he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to patented 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.2 X did not invent the "invention" if: 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.2.1 (1) Y conceived of it first, and 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.2.2 (2) the conception was communicated to X in a fashion that would enable a PHOSITA to practice it 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.2.2.1 i.e., the disclosure by Y must have met standard enablement requirements and must have encompassed all elements of the invention 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.2.2.2 Agawam (1869) 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.3 Location of the derivation irrelevant 4.3.1.1.1.1.5.2.4 Need corroborating evidence 4.3.1.1.1.1.6 Joint Invention 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.1 35 USC 116 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.1.1 "When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type of amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent." 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.2 Requirements 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.2.1 Each contributes significantly (measured by quality) to conception or RTP of at least one of the claims, in a fashion other than the explanation of familiar principles 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.3 Effects 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.3.1 Each acquired an undivided ownership interest in the entire patent 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.3.2 Each may unilaterally license others to practice the invention -- without an accounting 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.3.2.1 35 USC 262 4.3.1.1.1.1.6.3.2.1.1 In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners. 4.3.1.1.1.2 Fatal conditions --if they occur prior to the invention by the applicant 4.3.1.1.1.2.1 "Known or used by others" in USA 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.1 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 a person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country ..., before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.2 Known 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 = idea sufficiently well developed that a PHOSITA could reduce it to practice 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2 What if subsequently forgotten? 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.1 Gayler (1850) suggests that forgotten prior art can't anticipate, but current validity is in doubt 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.3 Used 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 = reduced to practice 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.1 Abandoned (and never perfected) experiments don't anticipate 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4 "By others" 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4.1 = reasonably accessible to the public 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4.1.1 National Tractor Pullers (ND Ill. 1980) MD 394 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.1 drawings on the underside of a kitchen tablecloth, never published, later destroyed don't suffice 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4.1.2 Rosaire (1955) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.4.1.2.1 Non secret use of oil prospecting method is sufficient 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5 Strict Anticipation Rules 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1 Each element of the claimed invention is disclosed in a single prior-art reference or embodied in a single prior-art device or practice 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.1 That which would literally infringe, if later, anticipates, if earlier 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.1.1 No anticipation by equivalents 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2 "Inherency" gloss on "disclosed" 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2.1 In re Robertson (1999) MD 361 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2.2 Sprouts Litigation (CAFC 2002) MD 384 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2.2.1 broccosprouts.com 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2.3 Schering (CAFC 2003) MD 374 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.1.2.4 SmithKline (CAFC 2005) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.2 Inadvertent prior art does not count 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.2.1 Mitchell v. Tilghman (US 1873) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.2.2 Edison Light (CA3 1909) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.2.3 In re Seaborg (CCPA 1964) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3 Enablement 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1 Reference must be enabling, taking into account the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.1 Paulsen (CAFC 1994) 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.2 enablement applies to making the invention, not using the invention 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.2.1 contrast 112 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.2.2 Hafner (CCPA 1969) MD 381 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.2.3 possible justification: proportionality 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.1.2.3.1 the recipient of a product patent can reach later discovered uses she neither thought of nor enabled; only fair that she be exposed to anticipation by not fully enabling references -- MD 383 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.2 Device or Practice need not be enabling 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.3.2.1 Lockwood (CAFC 1997) MD 385 4.3.1.1.1.2.1.5.4 Disclosure of a species anticipates a genus, but not vice versa 4.3.1.1.1.2.2 Patented or Described in a Printed Publication anywhere in the world (a) 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.1 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was ... patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2 publication (or patent) must have been accessible to the public 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.1 "public" = members of the public interested in the art, exercising reasonable diligence 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2 examples of documents deemed publicly accessible 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 typed or mimeographed document deposited in public library 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 scientific paper submitted for refereeing to a journal 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.3 properly indexed microfilm in Library of Congress 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.4 catalogued dissertation in university library 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.4.1 Hall (1986) 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.5 instruction sheet distributed on one island in Japan 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.6 German design patent available for public viewing in Germany 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.6.1 Carlson (1992) 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3 examples of documents deemed not publicly accessible 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.1 private papers 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.2 memos internal to an organization 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.3 scientific paper delivered orally to an audience 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.4 improperly indexed microfilm in Library of Congress 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.5 dissertation deposited in library but not catalogued or shelved 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.5.1 Bayer 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.6 undergraduate thesis deposited and shelved in college library, but catalogued only by author's name 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.6.1 Cronyn (1989) 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.7 documents filed in USSR, inaccessible to Americans 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.8 grant application sent to outside reviewers 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.3 "printed" includes information available in digital form 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.4 Strict Anticipation Rules 4.3.1.1.1.2.2.4.1 (see above) 4.3.1.1.1.2.3 Prior US Patent Applications by Others 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.1 102(e) 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international applicant filed under the treaty defined in Section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this sub section of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.2 applies only to descriptions of the invention in prior patent applications by others, not claims in prior patent applications by others 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.3 scenarios 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.4 International Novelty Problem 4.3.1.1.1.2.3.5 Strict Anticipation Rules 4.3.1.1.2 New Rules 4.3.1.1.2.1 First to file 4.3.1.1.2.1.1 Patent Awarded to the first to file 4.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 new 35 USC 102(a)(2) 4.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [to another] … or in [another’s] application for patent published … [that] was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 4.3.1.1.2.1.2 Forfeiting the benefit of first to file 4.3.1.1.2.1.2.1 filer derived the invention from someone else 4.3.1.1.2.1.2.2 filer abandons or suppresses the application 4.3.1.1.2.2 Fatal conditions --if they occur prior to the filing by the applicant 4.3.1.1.2.2.1 Invention was Patented or Described in a Printed Publication anywhere in the world (a) 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.1 new 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was ... the claimed invention was patented, [or] described in a printed publication, ... before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.2 publication (or patent) must have been accessible to the public 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.2.1 "public" = members of the public interested in the art, exercising reasonable diligence 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.2.2 old cases defining boundary between public and nonpublic are still relevant 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.3 "printed" includes information available in digital form 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.4 Strict Anticipation Rules 4.3.1.1.2.2.1.4.1 (see above) 4.3.1.1.2.2.2 Invention was on sale anywhere in the world 4.3.1.1.2.2.2.1 new 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was ... on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 4.3.1.1.2.2.2.2 incorporate old rules about "on sale," but now applied throughout the world 4.3.1.1.2.2.3 Invention was in public use anywhere in the world 4.3.1.1.2.2.3.1 new 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.2.2.3.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was ... in public use before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 4.3.1.1.2.2.3.2 incorporate old rules about public use, but now applied throughout the world 4.3.1.1.2.2.3.3 Is a secret noninforming use by the applicant a public use? 4.3.1.1.2.2.3.3.1 Merges and Duffy contend yes; this rule survives 4.3.1.1.2.2.4 Invention was available to the public anywhere in the world 4.3.1.1.2.2.4.1 new 35 USC 102(a) 4.3.1.1.2.2.4.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was ... otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 4.3.1.1.2.2.4.2 similar to old "known or used by others" (in USA) 4.3.1.1.2.2.5 Invention was described in an issued patent or in a patent application filed before applicant's filing date 4.3.1.1.2.2.5.1 102(a)(2): A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ... the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [to another] … or in [another’s] application for patent published … [that] was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 4.3.1.1.2.3 Effective date: March 16, 2013 4.3.2 Grace Periods 4.3.2.1 EPC & Japan: Absolute Novelty Principle 4.3.2.2 USA 4.3.2.2.1 Old Rules 4.3.2.2.1.1 Fatal conditions -- if they occur more than 1 year before filing a patent application 4.3.2.2.1.1.1 "On Sale" in USA 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.1 102(b) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ...(b) the invention was ... on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2 requirements 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 (1) "Definite sale or offer to sell" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Of What? 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Of embodiment of the invention 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 Not of patent rights 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2 borderline cases 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 secret sales? 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2 Unauthorized Sale by Third parties? vans (CAFC 1997) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.3 Sales by parent to subsidiary? Ferag (CAFC 1995) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.4 Uncommunicated offers? Envirotech 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2 (2) Stage of Development 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1 Pfaff (1998)* 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2 Possible Triggers 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.1 Recognize the problem and formulate a general strategy of solving it 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2 Conception 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 formulation of the complete means of solving the problem 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 Plan sufficiently detailed that a PHOSITA could RTP without further experimentation 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.3 "ready for patenting" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.1 The inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that are sufficient specific to enable a PHOSITA to practice the invention 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.3.2 Pfaff (1998); Westercham (1998) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.4 "Substantial embodiment" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.5 "Substantially completed invention" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.6 Reduction to practice 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.6.1 Completely manufactured or assembled & successfully tested 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.7 RTP + "on hand" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3 (3) Identity 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1 to create a bar, the thing on sale must be: 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1.1 The invention itself 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1.2 Something that makes the invention (as claimed) obvious 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1.2.1 Smith (CAFC 1983) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1.2.2 Tec Air (CAFC 1999) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.2 Claim-by-claim analysis 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.4 Narrow "experimental use" exception 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.1 Applicable only when the sale was "merely incidental to the primary purpose of experimentation" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.1.1 Scaltec (CAFC 1999); 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.1.2 Aqua Marine (CAFC 2001) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.2 compare Atlanta Attachment (CAFC 2008) 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.3 "In this Country" 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.3.1 Sale 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.3.2 Offer to sell 4.3.2.2.1.1.1.3.3 Substantial activity prefatory to a sale 4.3.2.2.1.1.2 "In public use" in USA 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.1 102(b) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was in public use ... in this country ..., more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2 "public" 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.1 How many embodiments of the invention? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1 Egbert: 1 is sufficient 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.2 How many people? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.2.1 Egbert: 1 is sufficient 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.3 Visibility? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.3.1 Egbert: Not necessary 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.3.2 Hall (1883) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.4 How open? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.1 Bergstrom (1978): fireplace grate-private 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.2 Beachcombers (CAFC 1994); kaleidescope at a party -- public 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.3 Baxter (CAFC 1996): centrifuge in a laboratory -- public 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.5 public distribution of fruits of concealed invention? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.5.1 Peerless Roll Leaf (CA2 1940): not fatal (for concealed product patent) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.5.2 Metallizing Engineering (CA2 1946): fatal (for concealed process) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.2.5.2.1 Now extended to product patents 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3 Exceptions 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.1 Confidentiality 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.1.1 Moleculon (CAFC 1986) Rubik's cube* 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.1.1.1 Tacit agreement by employer not to reveal information prevents disclosure from being public 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.1.1.2 infringer bears burden of demonstrating public use by clear and convincing evidence 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.2 Experimental Use 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.2.1 City of Elizabeth (1878) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.3.2.2 Lough (CAFC 1996)?* 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.4 Activities by third parties 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.4.1 Public use by 3rd party of surreptitiously obtained embodiments? Lorenz (CA3 1948) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.4.2 Public distribution by 3rd party of fruits of concealed invention? Gore (CAFC 1983) 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5 Identity? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5.1 Suppose I try out an invention in public, then add a minor feature that improves it, file patent application for the improved version. As of what date am I barred? 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5.2 To create a bar, the thing in public use must be: 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5.2.1 The Invention itself, or 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5.2.2 Something that makes the invention (as claimed) obvious, or 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.5.2.3 Drawings sufficient to be enabling 4.3.2.2.1.1.2.6 "In this country" 4.3.2.2.1.1.3 "Patented or Described in a Printed Publication anywhere in the world (b) 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.1 102(b) 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country..., more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.2 Scenarios* 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.2.1 see 102(a) 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.3 "patent" 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.3.1 Same definition as in context of novelty (102(a)) 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.4 "publication" 4.3.2.2.1.1.3.4.1 Same definition as in the context of novelty (102(a)) 4.3.2.2.1.1.4 Foreign Patents by the Applicant 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.1 102(d) 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ...(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.2 Scenarios* 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.3 Effective Date of Foreign Patent Grant 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.3.1 Kathawala 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.4 Effective Date of American Patent Application 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.4.1 "Continuation in Part" applications? 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.4.2 Successive Foreign applications? 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.5 Identity 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.5.1 Kathawala issue 4.3.2.2.1.1.4.5.2 Obviousness issue 4.3.2.2.2 New Rules 4.3.2.2.2.1 102(b) now creates a set of 1-year exceptions to the prior art that will invalidate a patent under 102(a) 4.3.2.2.2.2 Prior Art does not include disclosures (made less than 1 year before filing date) made by the applicant or derived (directly or indirectly) from disclosures made by the applicant 4.3.2.2.2.2.1 effect: no penalty for disclosing your invention prior to filing 4.3.2.2.2.2.2 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) 4.3.2.2.2.3 Prior Art does not include disclosures (made less than 1 year before filing date) made by 3rd parties after a "public" disclosure by the applicant 4.3.2.2.2.3.1 effect: strong incentive to disclose your invention publicly early 4.3.2.2.2.3.2 reinforces incentive created by first-to-disclose exception to new first-to-file system 4.3.2.2.2.3.3 35 USC 102(b)(1)(B) 4.3.2.2.2.4 Prior Art does not include disclosures (made less than 1 year before filing date) made by 3rd parties in patents or patent applications if: 4.3.2.2.2.4.1 3rd party derived the information from applicant, or 4.3.2.2.2.4.2 3rd party filed after public disclosure by applicant, or 4.3.2.2.2.4.3 common assignee for the two patent applications 4.3.2.2.2.4.4 35 USC 102(b)(2) 4.3.2.2.3 Effective date: March 16, 2013 4.3.3 Abandonment 4.3.3.1 35 USC 102(c) 4.3.3.1.1 A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (c) he has abandoned the invention 4.3.3.2 Abandonment of the right to obtain a patent, not abandonment of the invention itself 4.3.3.2.1 For the most part, covered by the other statutory bars 4.3.3.3 What constitutes abandonment? 4.3.3.3.1 Public and express renunciation of intent to file a patent 4.3.3.3.1.1 Kendall (1858) 4.3.3.3.2 Very long, deliberate, unexcused delay in filing for (or refiling for) a patent 4.3.3.3.2.1 Moore (1977) 4.3.3.3.2.2 Levinson (1969) 4.3.3.3.2.3 Keith (1879) 4.3.4 Net effects 4.3.4.1 If P wants patent protection only in the US, new regime will create strong incentives to disclose as early as possible 4.3.4.1.1 prevent rivals from patenting 4.3.4.1.2 disable rivals from interfering with P's patenting ability through early disclosure 4.3.4.1.3 grace period ensures no penalty for disclosing before patenting 4.3.4.2 If P wants global protection, file as soon as possible 4.3.4.2.1 disclosing prior to filing will be fatal in many countries, which lack grace periods 4.4 D. Nonobviousness 4.4.1 statutory basis: 35 USC 103 4.4.1.1 (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 4.4.1.2 (b) [Biotechnological Processes] 4.4.1.2.1 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), and upon timely election by the applicant for patent to proceed under this subsection, a biotechnological process using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section shall be considered nonobvious if-- 4.4.1.2.1.1 (A) claims to the process and the composition of matter are contained in either the same application for patent or in separate applications having the same effective filing date; and 4.4.1.2.1.2 (B) the composition of matter, and the process at the time it was invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. 4.4.1.2.2 (2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1)-- 4.4.1.2.2.1 (A) shall also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by that process, or 4.4.1.2.2.2 (B) shall, if such composition of matter is claimed in another patent, be set to expire on the same date as such other patent, notwithstanding section 154 [35 USCS § 154]. 4.4.1.2.3 (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "biotechnological process" means-- 4.4.1.2.3.1 (A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-- 4.4.1.2.3.1.1 (i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence, 4.4.1.2.3.1.2 (ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or 4.4.1.2.3.1.3 (iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism; 4.4.1.2.3.2 (B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody; and 4.4.1.2.3.3 (C) a method of using a product produced by a process defined by subparagraph (A) or (B), or a combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B). 4.4.1.3 (c) ["Bass disqualifier"] 4.4.1.3.1 (1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. 4.4.1.3.2 (2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if-- 4.4.1.3.2.1 (A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made; 4.4.1.3.2.2 (B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and 4.4.1.3.2.3 (C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. 4.4.1.3.3 (3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. 4.4.2 History 4.4.2.1 United States 4.4.2.1.1 Before 1850, no nonobviousness requirement 4.4.2.1.2 Hotchkiss (SCt 1850): need “skill and ingenuity” 4.4.2.1.3 1850-1950: Vague and Shifting Doctrine 4.4.2.1.3.1 Cuno Corp. (SCt 1941): need “flash of creative genius” 4.4.2.1.4 1952: Congress adds section 103 4.4.2.1.5 1952-1966: Confusion re impact of 103 4.4.2.1.6 Graham (SCt 1966) 4.4.2.1.7 1966-1982: Circuit courts diverge 4.4.2.1.7.1 2nd upholds only 4.8% of challenged patents 4.4.2.1.7.2 8th: 6% 4.4.2.1.7.3 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th: around 19% 4.4.2.1.7.4 4th and 5th: around 40% 4.4.2.1.8 1982-2007: Federal Circuit relaxes the standard 4.4.2.1.8.1 increased reliance on secondary factors 4.4.2.1.8.2 TSM test 4.4.2.1.8.2.1 challenger must identify some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior-art references 4.4.2.1.8.3 empirical studies, however, cast some doubt on the claims of relaxation -- and, in particular, the impact of the TSM test 4.4.2.1.8.3.1 Petherbridge & Wagner (2006) 4.4.2.1.8.3.2 Cotropia (2006) 4.4.2.1.8.3.3 Mandel (2006) 4.4.2.1.9 1973-2004: Changing scope of prior art 4.4.2.1.9.1 courts gradually expand scope of 103 prior art to match 102 4.4.2.1.9.2 partially offsetting series of statutes, excluding prior art developed by patentee or affiliates 4.4.2.1.9.2.1 "Bass disqualifier" 4.4.2.1.9.2.2 AIPA (1999) 4.4.2.1.9.2.3 CREATE Act of 2004 4.4.2.1.10 KSR (SCt 2007) 4.4.2.1.10.1 reject "rigid application" of TSM test 4.4.2.1.10.2 increase somewhat the creativity attributed to a PHOSITA 4.4.2.1.11 Impact of KSR 4.4.2.1.11.1 conventional view is that the change in the verbal formula had little impact on the standard in practice 4.4.2.1.11.2 recent empirical study suggests that CAFC tightened the nonobviousness standard significantly, beginning with cert grant in KSR 4.4.2.1.11.2.1 Mojibi 2010 4.4.2.1.11.2.2 key finding 4.4.2.1.11.3 Tokai v. Easton (CAFC 2011) 4.4.2.1.11.3.1 uphold DCt's grant of summary judgment to defendant on obviousness of safety switch for lighter 4.4.2.1.11.3.2 perhaps sign of increased willingness to grant summary judgment on obviousness issues 4.4.2.2 Other jurisdictions 4.4.3 Current doctrine 4.4.3.1 Consider 4.4.3.1.1 (a) scope and content of the prior art 4.4.3.1.1.1 "prior art" includes all types of prior art under 102 4.4.3.1.1.1.1 including secret prior art under 102(e) 4.4.3.1.1.2 except as limited by 103(c) -- aka "Bass disqualifier" 4.4.3.1.1.3 provided that the prior art in question is "analogous" 4.4.3.1.1.3.1 ie., either within the same field of endeavor as the invention 4.4.3.1.1.3.2 or reasonably pertinent to the same problem as that addressed by the invention 4.4.3.1.2 (b) gap between prior art and claims 4.4.3.1.3 (c) level of skill in the art 4.4.3.2 Secondary factors relevant (but less important than before) 4.4.3.2.1 commercial success 4.4.3.2.1.1 must show "nexus" between the invention and the commercial success of the product (or process) embodying it 4.4.3.2.2 long-felt need 4.4.3.2.3 failure of others 4.4.3.2.4 copying by others 4.4.3.2.5 public recognition of patentee as the inventor 4.4.3.2.6 simultaneous invention by others 4.4.3.2.6.1 currently given very little weight 4.4.3.3 Ancillary Tests 4.4.3.3.1 TSM test rejected in KSR 4.4.3.3.2 "obvious to try" test 4.4.3.3.2.1 rejected by CAFC in In re Deuel (1995) 4.4.3.3.2.2 revived by BPAI in In re Kubin (2007) 4.4.3.3.2.2.1 relying on KSR 4.4.3.3.2.2.2 currently on appeal to CAFC 4.4.3.3.3 prior art "taught away" 4.4.3.4 Standard of Review 4.4.3.4.1 Nonobviousness is a question of law 4.4.3.4.2 but depends on factual findings, which are reviewed under different standards: 4.4.3.4.2.1 if by PTO, "substantial evidence" test 4.4.3.4.2.2 if by District Court judge, "clearly erroneous" standard 4.4.3.4.2.3 if by jury, "substantial evidence" test ------------------------------------------------------------- 5 I. Subject Matter ------------------------------------------------------------- 5.1 General Principles 5.1.1 USA 5.1.1.1 Constitution, Art I, Section 1, Clause 8 5.1.1.1.1 "The Congress shall have power … to promote the Progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" 5.1.1.2 35 USC 101 5.1.1.2.1 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 5.1.1.3 Interpretations 5.1.1.3.1 Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 5.1.1.3.1.1 patentable 5.1.1.3.1.1.1 anything under the sun made by man 5.1.1.3.1.2 unpatentable: 5.1.1.3.1.2.1 laws of nature 5.1.1.3.1.2.2 physical phenomena 5.1.1.3.1.2.3 abstract ideas 5.1.1.3.2 O'Reilly v. Morse (1854) 5.1.1.3.3 Lab. Corp. v. Metabolit (2006) 5.1.1.3.3.1 Breyer's position: 5.1.1.3.3.1.1 no patent on process that merely restates a natural phenomenon 5.1.1.3.3.2 arguments in favor of Breyer 5.1.1.3.3.2.1 impediments to cumulative innovation 5.1.1.3.3.2.2 rent dissipation 5.1.1.3.3.2.3 impediments to the practice of medicine 5.1.1.3.3.2.4 no patents on basic research 5.1.1.3.3.2.4.1 distorts incentives 5.1.1.3.3.2.4.2 alternative of naming rights 5.1.1.3.3.2.5 incentives for basic researchers to specify practical applications 5.1.1.3.3.2.6 judges shouldn't extend patent protection to things unanticipated by Congress 5.1.1.3.3.2.7 general distrust of monopolies 5.1.1.3.3.3 arguments against Breyer 5.1.1.3.3.3.1 incentives for discovering natural relationships 5.1.1.3.3.3.2 incentives for costly medical research 5.1.1.3.4 In re Nuijten (2007) 5.1.1.3.5 Bilski (2010) 5.1.1.3.5.1 (see Business Method Patents -- below) 5.1.2 EPC 5.1.2.1 Art. 52 5.1.2.1.1 (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step. 5.1.2.1.2 (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information. 5.1.2.1.3 (3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. 5.1.2.1.4 (4) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods. 5.1.2.2 Art. 53 5.1.2.2.1 European patents shall not be granted in respect of: (a) inventions the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality, provided that the exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States; 5.1.2.2.2 (b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof. 5.1.2.3 Art. 57 5.1.2.3.1 An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture. 5.2 Specific Subjects 5.2.1 Naturally Occurring Substances 5.2.1.1 Principle: Isolated forms of naturally substances that exhibit properties different from the natural versions may be patented 5.2.1.1.1 Parke-Davis (1911) (adrenalin) 5.2.1.1.2 Insulin (1921) 5.2.1.1.3 Funk Bros. (1948) 5.2.2 Living Things 5.2.2.1 Plants 5.2.2.1.1 International Agreements 5.2.2.1.1.1 UPOV 5.2.2.1.1.1.1 History 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Union International Pour La Protection des Obtentions Vegetales 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 Formed 1961 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.3 Modified 1972, 1978, 1991 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.4 USA joins 1978 version in 1981, with reservation to avoid exclusivity 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.5 USA joins 1991 version in 1999 5.2.2.1.1.1.1.6 Membership: 54 Countries 5.2.2.1.1.1.2 Content 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 Member states must provide protection for new, distinct, uniform, stable plant varieties 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Arts. 2, 5-9 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.2 Breeder's rights shall include, with respect to the protected variety and to any "essentially derived" variety, the following exclusive rights: (Art. 14) 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1 reproduction 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2 conditioning for the purpose of propagation 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.3 sale or offering to sell 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.4 importing or exporting 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.3 Exceptions (Arts. 15-16) 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.1 private and noncommercial acts 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.2 acts for experimental purposes 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.3 acts for the purpose of breeding other varieties 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.3.4 (optional) farmers' right to save and plant seeds 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.4 Duration (Art. 19) 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.1 20 years from grant 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.4.2 for trees and vines, 25 years from grant 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.5 National Treatment Principle (Art. 4) 5.2.2.1.1.1.2.6 1-year priority right (Art. 11) 5.2.2.1.1.2 TRIPS 5.2.2.1.1.2.1 Member states may decline to provide patent protection for plants -- Art. 27(3)(6) 5.2.2.1.1.2.2 But if so, must provide "sui generis" protection 5.2.2.1.2 Plant Protection Act (1930) 5.2.2.1.2.1 subject matter 5.2.2.1.2.1.1 new, manmade plant varieties 5.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 variety = subspecies showing distinctive characteristics 5.2.2.1.2.1.1.2 no protection for discovered naturally occurring varieties 5.2.2.1.2.1.1.3 but protection does extend to "cultivated" new varieties, even if they arise spontaneously 5.2.2.1.2.2 requirements 5.2.2.1.2.2.1 ordinary utility patent requirements, except: 5.2.2.1.2.2.1.1 disclosure and enablement satisfied if written description is as complete as "reasonably possible" 5.2.2.1.2.3 infringement 5.2.2.1.2.3.1 reproduction through grafting or other forms of asexual reproduction, or sale of asexually reproduced copies 5.2.2.1.2.3.2 n.a. to reproduction through seeds 5.2.2.1.2.3.3 n.a. to independent invention 5.2.2.1.2.3.3.1 Imazio Nursery (CAFC 1995) 5.2.2.1.2.4 in practice 5.2.2.1.2.4.1 shields nurseries against reproduction of ornamental plants and fruits 5.2.2.1.2.4.1.1 examples 5.2.2.1.2.4.2 largely irrelevant to food staples 5.2.2.1.3 Plant Variety Protection Act 5.2.2.1.3.1 Subject Matter 5.2.2.1.3.1.1 plant variety = "a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest rank" 5.2.2.1.3.1.1.1 7 USC 2401(a)(9) 5.2.2.1.3.2 Requirements 5.2.2.1.3.2.1 new 5.2.2.1.3.2.1.1 as of the time of application, the variety has not been sold or given, by the breeder or with his consent, to anyone 5.2.2.1.3.2.1.1.1 in US, more than 1 year before 5.2.2.1.3.2.1.1.2 outside the US, more than 4 years before (or 6 years before, if it's a tee or vine) 5.2.2.1.3.2.2 distinct 5.2.2.1.3.2.2.1 clearly differentiable from any other known variety 5.2.2.1.3.2.3 uniform 5.2.2.1.3.2.3.1 any variations are describable, predictable, and commercially acceptable 5.2.2.1.3.2.4 stable 5.2.2.1.3.2.4.1 if reproduced, will remain stable to essential characteristics 5.2.2.1.3.3 Procedure 5.2.2.1.3.3.1 examination by Plant Variety Protection Office (within USDA) 5.2.2.1.3.3.1.1 seed deposit 5.2.2.1.3.3.2 administrative appeal to Plant Variety Protection Board 5.2.2.1.3.3.3 judicial appeal to District Court or CAFC 5.2.2.1.3.4 Infringement 5.2.2.1.3.4.1 sell, offer to sell, or transfer possession 5.2.2.1.3.4.1.1 Delta & Pine Land Co. (CAFC 1999): requires scienter 5.2.2.1.3.4.1.1.1 defendant knows or has reason to know that transfer is infringing 5.2.2.1.3.4.2 import or export 5.2.2.1.3.4.3 reproduce 5.2.2.1.3.4.4 use the variety in producing a hybrid 5.2.2.1.3.5 Exceptions 5.2.2.1.3.5.1 "any act done privately and for noncommercial purposes" 5.2.2.1.3.5.2 plant breeding 5.2.2.1.3.5.3 bona fide research 5.2.2.1.3.5.4 "saved seed" for use on the farm 5.2.2.1.3.5.4.1 Asgrow (1995): a farmer who meets the requirements set forth in sec 2543's proviso may sell for reproductive purposes only such seed as he has saved for the purpose for replanting his own acreage 5.2.2.1.3.5.5 compulsory license 5.2.2.1.3.5.5.1 Secretary of Agriculture may order, for 2 years, provided 5.2.2.1.3.5.5.1.1 (a) reasonable royalty 5.2.2.1.3.5.5.1.2 (b) necessary to maintain adequate food supply 5.2.2.1.3.6 Scope 5.2.2.1.3.6.1 the variety itself 5.2.2.1.3.6.2 a variety "essentially derived" from the protected variety 5.2.2.1.3.6.3 no equivalents doctrine 5.2.2.1.3.6.4 practical effect: almost impossible to infringe unless you begin with the protected variety itself 5.2.2.1.3.6.4.1 analogous to copyright 5.2.2.1.3.6.4.2 contrast patent 5.2.2.1.3.7 Term 5.2.2.1.3.7.1 20 years from grant 5.2.2.1.3.7.2 25 years from grant for trees and vines 5.2.2.1.3.8 In practice 5.2.2.1.3.8.1 primarily used to shield new forms of staple crops 5.2.2.1.3.8.1.1 soybeans 5.2.2.1.3.8.1.2 corn 5.2.2.1.3.8.2 Usage data 5.2.2.1.3.8.3 very little litigation or licensing 5.2.2.1.3.8.3.1 suits mostly against farmers who exceed "saved seed" exemption 5.2.2.1.3.8.4 easy for competitors to circumvent 5.2.2.1.3.9 Is it effective? 5.2.2.1.3.9.1 i.e., does it stimulate R&D in plant varieties? 5.2.2.1.3.9.2 enthusiasts 5.2.2.1.3.9.2.1 Gasser & Fraley, "Genetically Engineering Plants" (1989) 5.2.2.1.3.9.2.2 Lesser & Mason, Economic Analysis of the PVPA (1985) 5.2.2.1.3.9.2.3 Evanson, "IP Rights and Agribusiness" (1983) 5.2.2.1.3.9.3 skeptics 5.2.2.1.3.9.3.1 Kloppenberg, "First the Seed" (1988) 5.2.2.1.3.9.3.2 Butler (1985 & 1996) 5.2.2.1.3.9.3.3 Alston & Venner, "The Impact of the PVPA on Wheat" (2000) 5.2.2.1.3.9.3.4 Janis & Kesan, "Sound and Fury" (2002) 5.2.2.1.4 Utility Patents 5.2.2.1.4.1 extended to new, manmade plant varieties 5.2.2.1.4.1.1 Hibberd (1985) 5.2.2.1.4.1.1.1 PTO practice post Hibberd: 1800 patents on plants 5.2.2.1.4.1.2 Pioneer Hi-Bred (2001) 5.2.2.1.4.2 requirements 5.2.2.1.4.2.1 utility 5.2.2.1.4.2.2 novelty 5.2.2.1.4.2.3 nonobviousness 5.2.2.1.4.2.4 disclosure 5.2.2.1.4.2.4.1 PTO Regs: depositing seeds in depository open to the public is sufficient 5.2.2.1.4.3 infringement 5.2.2.1.4.3.1 "make, use, or sell" the patented plant 5.2.2.1.4.3.1.1 does this reach "innocent infringement"? 5.2.2.1.4.3.1.1.1 e.g., by pollen drift 5.2.2.1.4.3.1.2 Cf. Schmeiser v. Monsanto (Canada 2002) 5.2.2.1.4.3.1.2.1 Schmeiser's replication of "Roundup Ready" canola was not innocent because he know or had reason to know of the patent 5.2.2.1.4.3.1.3 North Dakota statute: patentees must designate "independent laboratories" to test crops to determine patent infringement 5.2.2.1.4.3.2 potentially more expansive claims than under PPA or PVPA 5.2.2.1.4.3.3 equivalents doctrine 5.2.2.1.4.4 exceptions 5.2.2.1.4.4.1 experimental use 5.2.2.1.4.4.1.1 Should it be expanded to parallel breeder's exemption under PVPA? 5.2.2.1.4.4.2 no "saved seed" exception 5.2.2.1.4.4.2.1 Monsanto v. McFarling (CAFC 2002) 5.2.2.1.4.5 usage 5.2.2.1.4.5.1 likely to rise with perceived inadequacy of PVPA 5.2.2.1.4.5.2 likely to rise with increased economic importance of genetically modified crops 5.2.2.1.5 Nonpatent forms of protection 5.2.2.1.5.1 Trademark 5.2.2.1.5.1.1 Passing Off Theory 5.2.2.1.5.1.1.1 Y produces new plant variety 5.2.2.1.5.1.1.2 advertises and sells seeds as X's 5.2.2.1.5.1.2 Reverse Passing Off Theory 5.2.2.1.5.1.2.1 Y buys X's seeds, reproduces them 5.2.2.1.5.1.2.2 sells them as Y's new variety 5.2.2.1.5.1.3 Registration Systems 5.2.2.1.5.1.3.1 Creator of a new plant variety registers it 5.2.2.1.5.1.3.2 Creator is then protected against passing off by competitors 5.2.2.1.5.1.3.3 France, Netherlands, Germany 5.2.2.1.5.2 Contracts 5.2.2.1.5.2.1 "Bag Tag" Licenses 5.2.2.1.5.2.1.1 "Resale of this seed for planting is strictly prohibited" 5.2.2.1.5.2.1.2 seeds may be used for planting a commercial crop only in a single season 5.2.2.1.5.2.1.3 purchaser may not save any seed for replanting or supply saved seed to anyone for replanting 5.2.2.1.5.2.2 enforceable? 5.2.2.1.5.2.2.1 arguably illegitimately curtails doctrine of patent exhaustion 5.2.2.1.5.2.2.2 arguably a contract of adhesion 5.2.2.1.5.2.2.2.1 cf. Clevenger dissent in McFarling 5.2.2.1.5.3 Technology 5.2.2.1.5.3.1 terminator genes 5.2.2.1.5.3.2 should their use be permitted? 5.2.2.2 Microorganisms 5.2.2.2.1 Chakrabarty 5.2.2.3 Animals 5.2.2.3.1 Animals are patentable 5.2.2.3.1.1 Ex parte Allen (1987) 5.2.2.3.1.2 ALDF v. Quigg (CAFC 1991) 5.2.2.3.2 No patents on claims on or "encompassing" a human being 5.2.2.3.2.1 Newman (PTO final rejection (2004)) 5.2.2.3.2.2 Weldon Amendment (2004) 5.2.2.4 Stem Cells 5.2.2.4.1 Brustle v. Greenpeace (ECJ 2011) 5.2.3 Genes 5.2.3.1 USA 5.2.3.1.1 longstanding position that isolated natural genes are patentable 5.2.3.1.1.1 thousands of patents issued on this basis 5.2.3.1.1.1.1 aprx. 40,000 patents in USA 5.2.3.1.1.1.2 2000 genes 5.2.3.1.1.2 controversy generated by companies' reliance on such patents to charge high prices for genetic tests 5.2.3.1.2 ACLU v. Myriad Genetics 5.2.3.1.2.1 Facts 5.2.3.1.2.1.1 issue: validity of patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and on genetic test based upon those genes 5.2.3.1.2.1.2 basis for test of vulnerability for breast or ovarian cancer 5.2.3.1.2.2 Procedural History 5.2.3.1.2.2.1 SDNY (March 2010): naturally occurring genes are not patentable 5.2.3.1.2.2.1.1 they are "directed to a law of nature and therefore improperly granted" 5.2.3.1.2.2.2 Intense debate over policies implicated by the ruling 5.2.3.1.2.2.2.1 US DOJ, over objections of PTO, supports the ruling 5.2.3.1.2.2.2.1.1 although criticizes Judge Sweet's opinion, to the extent it suggested that even manipulated forms of genes are not patentable 5.2.3.1.2.2.2.2 Steven Salzburg endorsement (Forbes 2010) 5.2.3.1.2.2.2.3 Wired (2010) 5.2.3.1.2.2.3 CAFC (July 2011) reverses SDNY, upholds validity of patents on genes 5.2.3.1.2.2.4 2012: Supreme Court vacates and remands for reconsideration in light of Mayo 5.2.3.1.2.2.5 August 2012: CAFC reiterates position in favor of patentability 5.2.3.1.2.2.6 November 30, 2012: Supreme Court grants certiorari 5.2.3.2 EPC 5.2.3.2.1 Biotech Directive 5.2.3.2.1.1 “biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process” is patentable “even if it previously occurred in nature.” 5.2.3.2.2 ECJ (2001): Patenting of human genetic material does not violate principles of human dignity 5.2.3.2.3 Monsanto v. Cetera (ECJ 2010) 5.2.3.2.3.1 Facts 5.2.3.2.3.1.1 Monsanto holds patents on roundup-ready soybeans (specifically, on the modified soybean DNA sequence that gives the plant resistance to roundup) 5.2.3.2.3.1.1.1 patent from EPO 5.2.3.2.3.1.1.2 but no patent in Argentina 5.2.3.2.3.1.2 Cetera grows roundup-ready soybeans in Argentina, then imports soybean meal into Europe 5.2.3.2.3.1.3 Monsanto alleges violation of Dutch patent, based upon importation of a product that contains an inactive ("dead") version of the patented gene 5.2.3.2.3.1.4 Cetera defends on the ground that Dutch patent law is inconsistent with EU Biotechnology Directive 5.2.3.2.3.2 Law 5.2.3.2.3.2.1 Under EU Biotechnology Directive 5.2.3.2.3.2.1.1 The protection conferred by a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall extend to all material . . . in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function. 5.2.3.2.3.2.2 importation of a product containing an inactive form of the patented gene is not infringement 5.2.3.2.3.2.2.1 national patent laws that suggest it is infringement are invalid 5.2.3.2.3.3 Impact 5.2.3.2.3.3.1 considerable uncertainty remains concerning when a gene is inactive 5.2.3.2.3.3.2 reflects growing hostility toward expansive deployments of gene patents 5.2.3.3 Japan 5.2.3.3.1 Genes, including DNA fragments, whose specific utility is known and disclosed, are patentable 5.2.3.4 Other countries 5.2.3.4.1 Australia: legislative proposal to eliminate patents on naturally occurring genes 5.2.4 Software 5.2.4.1 U.S. 5.2.4.1.1 Doctrinal History 5.2.4.1.1.1 1960s: CCPA forces PTO to increase availability of patent protection for software 5.2.4.1.1.1.1 Prater (1969) 5.2.4.1.1.1.2 Bernhart (1969) 5.2.4.1.1.1.2.1 software for depicting three dimensional objects in two dimensions 5.2.4.1.1.1.2.2 Held: A machine programmed in a new and nonobvious way is patentable 5.2.4.1.1.1.3 Musgrave (1970) 5.2.4.1.1.2 1970s: Supreme Court applies the brakes 5.2.4.1.1.2.1 Gottshalk v. Benson (1972) 5.2.4.1.1.2.1.1 computerized process for converting binary-coded numerals to pure binary form 5.2.4.1.1.2.1.2 Held: unpatentable because the invention claimed consists of no more than a mathematical algorithm; a patent would preempt its use 5.2.4.1.1.2.2 Parker v. Flook (1978) 5.2.4.1.1.2.2.1 computerized method for continuously recalculating the "alarm limit" during a chemical conversion process 5.2.4.1.1.2.2.2 Held: unpatentable, because if one ignores the algorithm on which the process is based, the claimed invention contains nothing new or inventive 5.2.4.1.1.2.2.3 Door left open a crack: "We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." 5.2.4.1.1.3 1980s and early 1990s: Gradual Relaxation of impediments 5.2.4.1.1.3.1 CCPA 5.2.4.1.1.3.1.1 "Freeman-Walker-Abele test" 5.2.4.1.1.3.1.1.1 If the claimed invention (a) directly or indirectly recites a mathematical algorithm, but (b) applies that algorithm in an otherwise statutory appparatus or process claim, it's patentable 5.2.4.1.1.3.1.2 In re Freeman (1977) 5.2.4.1.1.3.1.3 In re Walter (1980) 5.2.4.1.1.3.1.4 In re Abele (1982) 5.2.4.1.1.3.2 Supreme Court 5.2.4.1.1.3.2.1 Diamond v. Diehr (US 1981) 5.2.4.1.1.3.2.1.1 a process for continuously monitoring the temperature inside a synthetic rubber mold, using a computer and the well-known Arrhenius equation for measuring cure time as a function of temperature and other variables 5.2.4.1.1.3.2.1.2 Held: patentable, because this is an ordinary industrial process that happens to incorporate a computer program 5.2.4.1.1.3.3 CAFC 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.1 Iwahashi (1989) 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.1.1 voice pattern recognition software 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.1.1.1 incorporating improved technique for calculating autocorrelation coefficients 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.1.1.2 i.e., compaing short snippets of speech 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.1.2 held: fact that it was embedded in a read-only device made it a patentable machine or manufacture 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.2 Arrhythmia (1992) 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.2.1 computerized method of analyzing electrocardiograph ("ECG") patterns to detect persons at risk for certain heart diseases 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.2.2 "These claimed steps of 'converting,' 'applying,' 'determining,' and "comparing' are physical process steps that transform one physical, electrical signal into another." 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.3 Allappat (1994) 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.3.1 software for controlling the illumination of pixels on an oscilliscope to minimize discontinuity and jaggedness 5.2.4.1.1.3.3.3.2 Held: an algorithm embedded in general purpose computer is patentable 5.2.4.1.1.3.4 PTO 5.2.4.1.1.3.4.1 1996 Guidelines 5.2.4.1.1.3.4.1.1 will accept applications for patents on software on disks 5.2.4.1.1.4 late 1990s: Culmination 5.2.4.1.1.4.1 State Street Bank (1998) 5.2.4.1.1.4.1.1 computerized hub & spoke accounting method 5.2.4.1.1.4.1.2 Transformation of data by a machine into a final share price constitutes a practical application of an algorithm and is therefore patentable subject matter 5.2.4.1.1.4.1.3 Repudiate "business methods" exception to patentability 5.2.4.1.1.4.2 AT&T (1999) 5.2.4.1.2 Data 5.2.4.2 E.U. 5.2.4.3 Commentary 5.2.4.3.1 Pro-Patent Arguments 5.2.4.3.1.1 patent protection necessary to provide optimal incentives for development of new software "ideas," not just expression thereof 5.2.4.3.1.1.1 especially in light of weak copyright protection for "structure, sequence, and organization" of programs 5.2.4.3.1.2 patent protection necessary to enable firms to raise funds to commercialize innovations 5.2.4.3.1.3 publication requirement will accelerate progress and reduce redundant research 5.2.4.3.1.3.1 contrast trade-secret protection 5.2.4.3.1.4 patents necessary to avoid tilting R&D toward service-intensive sectors 5.2.4.3.1.5 denying patent protection for software will be either futile or impracticable 5.2.4.3.1.5.1 because increasingly, any given IT innovation can be implemented in either hardware or software 5.2.4.3.2 Anti-Patent Arguments 5.2.4.3.2.1 there already exist adequate incentives for innovative activity 5.2.4.3.2.1.1 Copyright 5.2.4.3.2.1.1.1 (see Copyright map) 5.2.4.3.2.1.2 opportunities to sell software-related services 5.2.4.3.2.1.3 nonmonetary motivations 5.2.4.3.2.1.3.1 reputation 5.2.4.3.2.1.3.2 challenge 5.2.4.3.2.1.3.3 play 5.2.4.3.2.1.3.4 see Benkler, Coase's Penguin, Yale L.J. 2003; Wealth of Networks (2006) 5.2.4.3.2.2 software patents benefit large firms and disadvantage SMEs 5.2.4.3.2.2.1 high costs 5.2.4.3.2.2.2 patent pools and cross licensing favor established firms and raise barriers to entry 5.2.4.3.2.3 patents create impediments to cumulative innovation 5.2.4.3.2.3.1 "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today" 5.2.4.3.2.3.1.1 Bill Gates (1991) 5.2.4.3.2.4 patents threaten development of free and open-source software 5.2.4.3.2.4.1 Lessig 5.2.4.3.3 Empirical Studies 5.2.4.3.3.1 James Bessen & Robert Hunt, "An Empirical Look at Software Patents" (2004) 5.2.4.3.3.1.1 rate of increase in software patenting in US substantially exceeds rate of increase in R&D spending 5.2.4.3.3.1.2 for individual firms, patents and R&D are typically substitutes, not complements 5.2.4.3.3.1.2.1 consistent with strategic patenting 5.2.4.3.3.1.2.2 inconsistent with incentive theory 5.2.4.3.3.1.3 most software patents are issued to manufacturing firms, not software firms 5.2.4.3.3.1.3.1 e.g., IBM has 7,500 5.2.4.3.3.2 Robert Hahn & Scott Wallsten, "A Review of Bessen and Hunt" (2003) 5.2.4.3.3.2.1 argue B&H use excessively broad definition of software and narrow sample of firms 5.2.4.3.3.2.2 argue B&H improperly rely on patent grants, rather than applications 5.2.4.3.3.3 Ronald Mann (2005) 5.2.4.3.3.3.1 more optimistic assessment of the functions performed by software patents in hands of small firms 5.2.4.3.4 Proposals for Improving the System 5.2.4.3.4.1 No patents on information processing technology? 5.2.4.3.4.1.1 Pam Samuelson, "Benson Revisited," 39 Emory L.J. 1025 (1990) 5.2.4.3.4.1.2 probably politically infeasible in USA 5.2.4.3.4.1.3 would prompt embedding innovations in software, not hardware 5.2.4.3.4.2 Eliminate Business-Method Patents 5.2.4.3.4.2.1 Unnecessary to stimulate innovation in business techniques 5.2.4.3.4.2.1.1 Rochelle Dreyfuss, “Are BMPs Bad for Business,” 16 Computer & High-Tech LJ 263 (2000) 5.2.4.3.4.2.2 Adequate incentives already exist in the form of first-mover advantages 5.2.4.3.4.2.2.1 Arti Rai, “Addressing the Patent Gold Rush,” 2 Wash. U. J. Law & Policy 199 (2000) 5.2.4.3.4.2.3 Counter: Quality and Value of BMPs are just as high as those of other patents 5.2.4.3.4.2.3.1 John Allison & Emerson Tiller, “The BMP Myth,” 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 987 (2003)겨갃ߐĀ限࿕ 5.2.4.3.4.2.3.2 response: these are measures of private value, not social value 5.2.4.3.4.3 Narrow the scope of patent protection for software 5.2.4.3.4.3.1 Improve quality of software patent exams 5.2.4.3.4.3.1.1 "second pair of eyes" 5.2.4.3.4.3.1.1.1 already instituted in U.S. for BMPs 5.2.4.3.4.3.1.2 enhance databases of nonpatent literature 5.2.4.3.4.3.1.2.1 Bradford Smith & Susan Mann, "Innovation and IP," Chicago LR 2004 5.2.4.3.4.3.2 Tighten Nonobviousness standard 5.2.4.3.4.3.2.1 Would the invention have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill ... who: (a) knew the particular algorithm; (b) desired to accomplish the function or task to be performed; and (c) desired to do so with the aid of a computer" 5.2.4.3.4.3.2.1.1 Richard Stern 5.2.4.3.4.3.2.1.2 Julie Cohen 5.2.4.3.4.3.3 Tighten Disclosure Requirement 5.2.4.3.4.3.3.1 compel revelation of object code of preferred embodiment of the program 5.2.4.3.4.3.3.2 Lawrence Graham & Richard Zerbe, "Economically Efficient Treatment of Computer Software," 61 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 96 (1996) 5.2.4.3.4.3.4 Increase opportunities for third-party challenges 5.2.4.3.4.3.4.1 pre-grant opposition systems 5.2.4.3.4.3.4.2 post-grant reexamination systems 5.2.4.3.4.3.4.3 Jaffe et al., 2004 5.2.4.3.4.3.5 Limit Patent Entitlements 5.2.4.3.4.3.5.1 Safe harbor for copying programs to the extent necessary to achieve interoperability 5.2.4.3.4.3.5.2 Sparing application of "equivalents" doctrine to permit nonliteral copying 5.2.4.3.4.3.5.3 Julie Cohen & Mark Lemley, "Patent Scope and Innovation in theSoftware Industry," 89 California L. Rev. 1 (2001) 5.2.5 Business Methods 5.2.5.1 USA 5.2.5.1.1 Examples of BMPs 5.2.5.1.2 History of Legal Treatment 5.2.5.1.2.1 Business Methods long said to be outside patent protection -- abstract ideas 5.2.5.1.2.1.1 Hotel Security (1908) 5.2.5.1.2.1.2 Sterling (1934) 5.2.5.1.2.1.3 Wait (1934) 5.2.5.1.2.1.4 Patton (1942) 5.2.5.1.2.1.5 Loew's Drive-in (1949) 5.2.5.1.2.1.6 Murray (1988) 5.2.5.1.2.2 Relaxation 5.2.5.1.2.2.1 1980s and 1990s: PTO grants growing number of BMPs 5.2.5.1.2.2.1.1 many under auspices of loosening rules concerning software patents 5.2.5.1.2.2.2 1996: PTO guidelines instruct examiners to treat BMPs like any other process patent applications 5.2.5.1.2.2.3 State Street Bank (CAFC 1998) 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.1 facts 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.1.1 innovation 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.1.2 the patent 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.2 holding 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.2.1 applications for BMPs should be treated like any other process patent applications 5.2.5.1.2.2.3.2.2 a process is patent-eligible if it produces “a useful, concrete, and tangible result” — such as the transformation of financial data from one form to another form. 5.2.5.1.2.3 Backlash 5.2.5.1.2.3.1 Prior User right (1998) 5.2.5.1.2.3.1.1 Section 273: Defense to a suit for infringement of a BMP: defendant had in good faith both: 5.2.5.1.2.3.1.1.1 (a) reduced the invention to practice more than 1 year before filing date and 5.2.5.1.2.3.1.1.2 (b) commercially used the invention prior to filing date 5.2.5.1.2.3.2 Bounty Quest 5.2.5.1.2.3.3 Nonobviousness challenges 5.2.5.1.2.3.3.1 e.g., Amazon "one click" 5.2.5.1.2.3.4 SPER (March 2000) 5.2.5.1.2.3.4.1 more examiners for Class 705 hired 5.2.5.1.2.3.4.2 duty to consult more prior-art references 5.2.5.1.2.3.4.3 each allowed application is reviewed by second examiner 5.2.5.1.2.3.5 eBay 5.2.5.1.2.3.5.1 Justice Kennedy concurrence 5.2.5.1.2.3.6 Comiskey (CAFC 2007) 5.2.5.1.2.3.6.1 a claim reciting an algorithm or abstract idea can state statutory subject matter only if, as employed in the process, it is embodied in, operates on, transforms, or otherwise involves another class of statutory subject matter, i.e., a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter 5.2.5.1.2.3.6.2 the present statute does not allow patents to be issued on particular business systems—such as a particular type of arbitration—that depend entirely on the use of mental processes 5.2.5.1.2.4 Bilski (2010) 5.2.5.1.2.4.1 facts 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.1 method of trading weather risks 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.2 claim 1: 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.2.1 1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of: 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.2.2 (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer; 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.2.3 (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.2.4 (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions. 5.2.5.1.2.4.1.3 no reference to computer software or apparatus 5.2.5.1.2.4.2 procedural history 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.1 examiner rejects 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.2 BPAI affirms 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3 CAFC orders en banc review 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3.1 (1) Whether claim 1 of the 08/833,892 patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101? 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3.2 (2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101? 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3.3 (3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that constitutes both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter? 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3.4 (4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101? 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.3.5 (5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect? 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.4 oral arguments heard on May 8, 2008 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.4.1 PTO position 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.4.1.1 "process" limited to: 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.4.1.1.1 process limited to a particular apparatus (i.e., machine implemented) 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.4.1.1.2 process that operates to change materials to a different state or thing 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5 CAFC decision (en banc October 30, 2008) 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1 Majority opinion 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.1 distance itself from State Street Bank 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.2 holding: "machine or transformation" test 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.2.1 For a claimed process to be patent-eligible under § 101, it is both necessary and sufficient that either: 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.2.1.1 (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.2.1.2 (2) it transforms a physical article or object into a different state or thing. 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.3 ambiguities 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.3.1 unclear whether recitation of implementation in a general-purpose computer will suffice 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.3.1.1 PTO has taken the position: No 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.1.3.1.1.1 Ex parte Langemyr and Ex parte Wasynczuk 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2 dissents 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.1 Mayer 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.1.1 would expressly overrule State Street and declare all BMPs unpatentable 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.2 Rader 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.2.1 would adhere to State Street test 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.2.2 Bilski patent should be rejected as an "abstract idea" 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.3 Newman 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.3.1 would adhere to State Street test 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.5.2.3.2 Bilski patent should be granted 5.2.5.1.2.4.2.6 Supreme Court review 2009-2010 5.2.5.1.2.4.3 options presented to SCt 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1 (1) Variations on Chakrabarty test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1 (a) reinstate Chakrabarty (1980) 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.1 patentable 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.1.1 anything under the sun made by man 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.2 unpatentable: 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.2.1 laws of nature 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.2.2 physical phenomena 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.1.2.3 abstract ideas 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.2 (b) Chakrabarty + exclusion for tax patents 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.3 (c) Chakrabarty + for business-method patents 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.4 (d) Chakrabarty + exclusion of algorithms not tied to physical elements or steps 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.1.4.1 Freeman-Walter-Abele test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.2 (2) Variations on "Technical Aspect" Test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.2.1 EU approach 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.2.2 cf. IBM amicus brief 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3 (3) Variations on "Useful, Tangible, Result" Test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3.1 (a) reinstate State Street test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3.2 (b) State Street + requirement of physical steps 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3.2.1 cf. Microsoft brief 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3.3 (c) State Street + requirement of specific series of steps 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.3.3.1 cf. Yahoo! brief 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.4 (4) Variations on "machine or transformation" test 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.4.1 (a) CAFC decision in Bilski 5.2.5.1.2.4.3.4.2 (b) reject option of satisfying "machine" through recitation of general-purpose computer 5.2.5.1.2.4.4 Result 5.2.5.1.2.4.4.1 reject blanket exclusion of business methods 5.2.5.1.2.4.4.2 reject "machine or transformation" test as the exclusive test, but approve it as one among many 5.2.5.1.2.4.4.3 reinstate, roughly, prior open-ended definitions of "process" 5.2.5.1.2.4.4.4 encourage CAFC to continue to look for ways of limiting BMPs to ensure they advance the purposes of the patent system 5.2.5.1.2.5 2011 patent reform 5.2.5.1.2.5.1 defendants accused of infringing BMPs in financial services field can initiate post-grant PTO review of the patents 5.2.5.1.2.5.2 this option expires in 2020 5.2.5.1.2.6 Mayo (US 2012) 5.2.5.1.2.6.1 CAFC 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1 facts 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.1 gist of claims 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.1.1 administer a drug for inflammatory bowel disease 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.1.2 test for levels of resultant metabolite in the blood 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.1.3 administer more or less of the drug, depending on whether metabolite levels fall above or below specified range 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.2 actual claim 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.1.2.1 "A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: "(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and "(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, "wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and "wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject." 5.2.5.1.2.6.1.2 rely on "machine or transformation" test to uphold the patent against 101 challenge 5.2.5.1.2.6.2 Supreme Court 5.2.5.1.2.6.2.1 reject patent on 101 grounds 5.2.5.1.2.6.2.2 "If a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself. " 5.2.5.1.2.6.2.3 "Purely "conventional or obvious" "[pre]solution activity" is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law. " 5.2.5.1.2.6.2.4 tie statutory standard directly to underlying policy concern: "that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of laws of nature" 5.2.5.1.2.7 Data 5.2.5.1.2.7.1 BMPs applied for and issued 5.2.5.1.2.7.2 Impact of SPER 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.1 Good news: large increase in prior-art references 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.1.1 roughly correlated with increase in patent quality 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.1.1.1 probability that patent will be found valid if challenged 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.1.1.2 i.e., strength in terms of novelty, nonobviousness, and enablement 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.1.2 Allison & Hunter 2005 5.2.5.1.2.7.2.2 Bad news: strategic drafting to avoid SPER 5.2.5.1.3 Post-Bilski BMP Case Law 5.2.5.1.3.1 Cybersource (CAFC 2011) 5.2.5.1.3.2 Ultramercial (CAFC 2011) 5.2.5.1.3.2.1 2012: Supreme Court remands for reconsideration in light of Mayo 5.2.5.1.3.3 Dealertrack (2012) 5.2.5.1.3.4 Fort Properties (2012) 5.2.5.1.3.5 Efforts to make sense of the cases 5.2.5.2 EPC 5.2.5.3 Japan 5.2.6 Medical Procedures 5.2.6.1 TRIPS 27(3)(A) permits exclusion 5.2.6.2 Options: 5.2.6.2.1 US position before 1996: patents permissible 5.2.6.2.2 US position after 1996: patents permissible but doctors and "related health care entities" are not subject to patent remedies for "performance" of "medical activities" 5.2.6.2.2.1 287(c) 5.2.6.2.2.2 no exception for research 5.2.6.2.3 EPC 54(2): no patents 5.2.6.2.3.1 roughly 80 countries take this position 5.2.7 Sports 5.2.7.1 sports equipment plainly patentable 5.2.7.2 sports techniques patentable but controversial 5.2.7.2.1 illustrations and problems 5.2.8 Tax Strategies 5.2.8.1 History in USA 5.2.8.1.1 PTO begins to grant them in 1992 5.2.8.1.2 1992-2011: pressure to eliminate these patents grows 5.2.8.1.2.1 Equal Access to Tax Planning Act of 2011 5.2.8.1.2.2 introduced in Senate, January 26, 2011 5.2.8.1.2.3 accountants favor elimination of tax patents 5.2.8.1.2.3.1 • Limits taxpayers’ ability to use fully tax law interpretations intended by Congress; 5.2.8.1.2.3.2 • May cause some taxpayers to pay more tax than Congress intended or more than others similarly situated; 5.2.8.1.2.3.3 • Complicates the provision of tax advice by professionals; 5.2.8.1.2.3.4 • Hinders compliance by taxpayers; 5.2.8.1.2.3.5 • Misleads taxpayers into believing that a patented strategy is valid under the tax law; and 5.2.8.1.2.3.6 • Precludes tax professionals from challenging the validity of a patented strategy. 5.2.8.1.2.4 criticism by tax professors 5.2.8.1.2.4.1 Bernie Wolfman 5.2.8.1.3 September 2011: eliminated 5.2.8.1.3.1 "strategies for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability" 5.2.8.2 Other countries 5.2.8.2.1 tax-strategy patents still available in Australia 5.2.9 Designs 5.2.9.1 Design Patents 5.2.9.1.1 Requirements 5.2.9.1.1.1 "Design" 5.2.9.1.1.1.1 appearance 5.2.9.1.1.1.2 ephemeral designs are acceptable 5.2.9.1.1.2 "Primarily ornamental" 5.2.9.1.1.2.1 form dictated by function? If not, then it's ornamental 5.2.9.1.1.2.1.1 Avia (1988) 5.2.9.1.1.2.2 product of aesthetic skill and artistic conception? 5.2.9.1.1.2.2.1 Blisscraft (1961) 5.2.9.1.1.2.3 attractive? 5.2.9.1.1.2.3.1 creates a "pleasing impression or appearance on the aesthetic senses" 5.2.9.1.1.2.3.1.1 Design, Inc. (1970) 5.2.9.1.1.2.4 commercial success relevant 5.2.9.1.1.2.4.1 Lindgren 1985 5.2.9.1.1.2.5 visible? 5.2.9.1.1.3 Novel 5.2.9.1.1.3.1 different from any prior-art reference or device 5.2.9.1.1.3.2 overall impression 5.2.9.1.1.3.3 "ordinary observer" standard 5.2.9.1.1.3.3.1 “If the general or ensemble appearance-effect of a design is different from that of others in the eyes of ordinary observers, novelty of design is deemed to be present. The degree of difference required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not for a modified already-existing, design.” Bartlett (CCPA 1962) 5.2.9.1.1.3.4 102(b) 5.2.9.1.1.3.4.1 invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the US 5.2.9.1.1.4 Nonobvious 5.2.9.1.1.4.1 PHOSITA = ordinary designer 5.2.9.1.1.5 Reduced to practice 5.2.9.1.1.5.1 three-dimensional embodiment 5.2.9.1.2 Procedure 5.2.9.1.2.1 simple specification: drawing, title, single claim 5.2.9.1.3 Infringement 5.2.9.1.3.1 test: are the two designs substantially the same to an ordinary observer? 5.2.9.1.3.2 Point of Novelty Test 5.2.9.1.3.2.1 Old Test: The accused device must appropriate the novelty in the patented device which distinguishes it from the prior art 5.2.9.1.3.2.1.1 schematic illustration 5.2.9.1.3.2.2 much softened by Egyptian Goddess (CAFC 2008) 5.2.9.1.3.2.2.1 facts 5.2.9.1.3.2.2.2 Held: apply ordinary observer test -- with the understanding that the ordinary observer will pay close attention to the prior art 5.2.9.1.3.2.2.2.1 "When the differences between the claimed and accused design(s) are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that differ from the prior art. And when the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design are likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer." 5.2.9.1.4 Term 5.2.9.1.4.1 14 years 5.2.9.1.5 Examples 5.2.9.1.5.1 Audi 5.2.9.1.5.1.1 D423292 (2013) 5.2.9.1.5.1.2 Images 5.2.9.1.6 Cases 5.2.9.1.6.1 Litton 5.2.9.1.6.1.1 facts 5.2.9.1.6.2 Avia (CAFC 1988) 5.2.9.1.6.2.1 facts 5.2.9.1.6.3 Rosco v. Mirror Lite (CAFC 2002) 5.2.9.1.6.3.1 facts 5.2.9.1.7 Data 5.2.9.2 Double Patenting 5.2.9.2.1 permissible 5.2.9.2.1.1 lamp example 5.2.9.2.2 but only one damages recovery for infringement ------------------------------------------------------------- 6 International Framework ------------------------------------------------------------- 6.1 Five main patent systems 6.1.1 USA 6.1.2 EPC 6.1.3 Japan 6.1.4 Korea 6.1.5 China 6.1.6 together, these receive 80% of all patent applications 6.2 Integration and Harmonization 6.2.1 Background 6.2.1.1 19th century: wide variations among countries in substantive patent law 6.2.1.1.1 Subject Matter coverage 6.2.1.1.2 Substantive examination of patent applications 6.2.1.1.3 Publication practices 6.2.1.1.3.1 Upon filing 6.2.1.1.3.2 Upon grant 6.2.1.1.3.3 Upon expiration 6.2.1.1.4 Priority rules 6.2.1.1.4.1 First to invent 6.2.1.1.4.2 First to file 6.2.1.2 Each country tended to favor its own nationals 6.2.1.2.1 Rationales 6.2.1.2.1.1 Simple nationalism 6.2.1.2.1.2 if the inventive activity stimulated by the patent regime occurs outside the country, the country reaps fewer social benefits while bearing all the social harms 6.2.2 Paris Convention 6.2.2.1 History 6.2.2.1.1 Created 1884 6.2.2.1.2 6 revisions 6.2.2.1.3 Currently, 173 member countries 6.2.2.1.3.1 list 6.2.2.1.3.2 map 6.2.2.2 Major Provisions 6.2.2.2.1 National Treatment 6.2.2.2.1.1 Section 2(1) 6.2.2.2.1.1.1 “Nationals of any country of the Union shall, as regards the protection of industrial property, enjoy in all the other countries of the Union the advantages that their respective laws now grant, or may hereafter grant, to nationals; all without prejudice to the rights specially provided for by this Convention. Consequently, they shall have the same protection as the latter, and the same legal remedy against any infringement of their rights, provided that the conditions and formalities imposed upon nationals are complied with.” 6.2.2.2.1.2 Reject reciprocity principle 6.2.2.2.1.3 Applies to both patents and utility models 6.2.2.2.2 Right of Priority 6.2.2.2.2.1 Eliminate need to file in separate countries on same day 6.2.2.2.2.2 Procedure 6.2.2.2.2.2.1 File in member country A 6.2.2.2.2.2.2 File in member country B within 1 year 6.2.2.2.2.2.3 Get priority date in B of filing in A 6.2.2.2.2.3 Priority claim does not affect term of patent -- 4bis(5) 6.2.2.2.2.4 US Implementation: 35 USC 119 6.2.2.2.2.4.1 Can invoke this procedure iff claims in American application are supported by prior foreign application to extent required by 112 6.2.2.2.3 Restrictions on Compulsory Licenses 6.2.2.2.3.1 Modest (but controversial) limitations on ability of member countries to impose compulsory licenses or declare patents forfeit for “failure to work” 6.2.2.2.3.2 No limits on the grant of CLs in the public interest 6.2.2.2.4 Member states may form "Special Agreements" 6.2.2.3 Gaps 6.2.2.3.1 No minimum standards for patent protection 6.2.2.3.1.1 Member countries varied widely 6.2.2.3.2 No guarantees of effective enforcement of patents 6.2.2.3.3 No meaningful system for policing violations of the Convention 6.2.2.3.3.1 Possible to seek review of another country's compliance in Court of International Justice 6.2.2.3.3.2 Never invoked 6.2.3 Patent Cooperation Treaty 6.2.3.1 History 6.2.3.1.1 Limited to members of Paris Convention 6.2.3.1.2 Effective 1970 6.2.3.1.3 US Accession 1978 6.2.3.1.4 Modified 1979, 1984 6.2.3.1.5 Currently 139 member countries 6.2.3.2 Procedures 6.2.3.2.1 (1) International Patent Application 6.2.3.2.1.1 In designated national patent offices or with WIPO 6.2.3.2.1.2 Designate any or all PCT states 6.2.3.2.1.3 May claim priority date of prior filing in Paris Convention Country 6.2.3.2.2 (2) International Search Report 6.2.3.2.2.1 Prepared by an "International Authority" selected by applicant 6.2.3.2.2.1.1 designated national patent offices 6.2.3.2.2.1.2 currently the national offices of: Australia; Austria; Brazil; Canada; China; Finland; Sweden; Japan; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Spain; USA; the international office of “Nordic Patent Institute” (Denmark/Iceland/Norway); and the European Patent Office 6.2.3.2.2.2 content 6.2.3.2.2.2.1 Classification of invention 6.2.3.2.2.2.2 Fields searched 6.2.3.2.2.2.3 Citations to prior art 6.2.3.2.2.3 Published 18 months after priority date 6.2.3.2.3 (3) International Preliminary Examination 6.2.3.2.3.1 Optional 6.2.3.2.3.1.1 currently requested in by only aprx. 10% of applicants 6.2.3.2.3.1.2 trends 6.2.3.2.3.1.2.1 2001-2005 6.2.3.2.3.1.2.2 2004-2008 6.2.3.2.3.2 Nonbinding opinion concerning novelty, nonobviousness, utility 6.2.3.2.4 (4) National Patent Examinations 6.2.3.2.4.1 Each office tests application against local standards 6.2.3.2.4.2 No requirement of full faith and credit 6.2.3.3 Advantages to patentees 6.2.3.3.1 Reduce expense of international filings 6.2.3.3.2 Delay prior to "National Phase" 6.2.3.3.2.1 up to 30 months 6.2.3.3.2.2 exceptions 6.2.3.3.2.2.1 31 months for EPO 6.2.3.3.2.2.2 20 months for Luxembourg, Tanzania, and Uganda 6.2.3.4 PCT Usage 6.2.4 TRIPS 6.2.4.1 History 6.2.4.1.1 Adopted 1994, as part of Uruguay Round of GATT 6.2.4.1.1.1 Interpretations of the Origins of the Agreement 6.2.4.1.1.1.1 (1) Developed countries forced less developed countries to accept IP rules not in their best interest 6.2.4.1.1.1.1.1 The leaders of major industries (Hollywood and PHARMA) successfully used the GATT process to advance their own interests 6.2.4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Susan K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights (2003) 6.2.4.1.1.1.1.1.2 Ruth L. Okediji, Public Welfare and the Role of the WTO: Reconsidering the TRIPS Agreement, 17 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 819 (2003) 6.2.4.1.1.1.2 (2) Less developed countries rationally traded obligation to increase IP protections for (a) increased opportunities to export agricultural products and textiles and (b) protection from unilateral sanctions by USA 6.2.4.1.1.1.2.1 Peter Yu, "TRIPS and Its Discontents," 10 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 369 (2006) 6.2.4.1.1.1.3 (3) Leaders of less developed countries saw increased IP protections as beneficial for them in the long run -- and used the WTO as a vehicle to outflank parochial local pirate industries 6.2.4.1.1.1.3.1 cf. Edmund W. Kitch, The Patent Policy of Developing Countries, 13 UCLA Pac. Basin L.J. 166 (1994) 6.2.4.1.2 Currently 153 member countries 6.2.4.1.2.1 list 6.2.4.1.2.2 map 6.2.4.2 Substance 6.2.4.2.1 Incorporate Paris Convention, Articles 1-12, 19 6.2.4.2.2 National Treatment 6.2.4.2.3 Most favored nation principle 6.2.4.2.3.1 “With regard to the protection of intellectual property, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members” – 4 6.2.4.2.3.2 Limited exceptions 6.2.4.2.4 Mandatory Subject-Matter Coverage (27) 6.2.4.2.4.1 Countries must grant patents for all inventions (products and processes) that are: 6.2.4.2.4.1.1 Novel 6.2.4.2.4.1.2 Involve an inventive step 6.2.4.2.4.1.3 Capable of Industrial Application 6.2.4.2.4.2 No discrimination on basis of: 6.2.4.2.4.2.1 Field of technology 6.2.4.2.4.2.2 Place of invention 6.2.4.2.4.2.3 Local production 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.1 “Patent rights [shall be] enjoyable without discrimination as to … whether products are imported or locally produced” 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.2 Possible Interpretations: 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.2.1 (a) ban all “working” obligations 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.2.2 (b) compulsory licenses are permitted if they do not treat differently imported and locally produced products 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.3 commentary 6.2.4.2.4.2.3.3.1 for analysis of the scope of a country's authority to impose working requirements, see Halewood, "Regulating Patent Holders: Local Working Requirements and Compulsory Licenses at International Law," 35 Osgood Hall L.J. 243 (1997) 6.2.4.2.4.3 Permissible Exclusions 6.2.4.2.4.3.1 “inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment” – 27.2 6.2.4.2.4.3.2 “diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals” – 27.3 6.2.4.2.4.3.3 “plants and animals other than micro-organisms” & biological [not microbiological] processes for the production thereof – 27.3 6.2.4.2.4.3.3.1 But must then provide sui generis protection for plant varieties 6.2.4.2.5 Mandatory Entitlements 6.2.4.2.5.1 Products: “to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from the acts of: making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing” – 28.1(a) 6.2.4.2.5.2 Processes: “to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from the act of using the process, and from the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process” – 28.1(b) 6.2.4.2.5.3 Rights to assign and license – 28.2 6.2.4.2.5.4 Exceptions 6.2.4.2.5.4.1 “Limited” exceptions to exclusive rights permissible only if they “do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties” – 30 6.2.4.2.5.4.1.1 "three step test" 6.2.4.2.5.4.2 Possible examples 6.2.4.2.5.4.2.1 Experimental Use Defense 6.2.4.2.5.4.2.2 Refusals to grant injunctive relief where it might threaten public health 6.2.4.2.6 Limits on Compulsory Licenses (31) 6.2.4.2.6.1 Constraints 6.2.4.2.6.1.1 (a) authorization considered on the merits; 6.2.4.2.6.1.2 (b) must first try to obtain authorization on reasonable commercial terms 6.2.4.2.6.1.2.1 Waived in cases of "national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency" 6.2.4.2.6.1.2.1.1 Each Member has the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted. Doha Declaration (11/14/2001), 5(b). 6.2.4.2.6.1.2.1.2 Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises, including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency. Doha Declaration (11/14/2001), 5(c) 6.2.4.2.6.1.3 (c) scope and duration limited to original purpose; 6.2.4.2.6.1.4 (d) nonexclusive; 6.2.4.2.6.1.5 (e) nonassignable; 6.2.4.2.6.1.6 (f) authorized predominantly for the use of the domestic market; 6.2.4.2.6.1.6.1 Waived with respect to drugs exported to a member country that lacks sufficient manufacturing capacity and grants a CL on the drug, Clarification of Doha, 8/30/2003 6.2.4.2.6.1.6.1.1 Importing countries must take measures to prevent re-exportation 6.2.4.2.6.1.6.1.2 Other member countries must take measures to prevent importation of such drugs 6.2.4.2.6.1.7 (g) license ceases when the circumstances no longer exist; 6.2.4.2.6.1.8 (h) “appropriate compensation” for the use, “taking into account the economic value of the license”; 6.2.4.2.6.1.8.1 When both exporting and importing countries create CLs for drugs, exporting country must arrange payment of adequate remuneration to patentee, but importing country need not, Clarification of Doha, 8/30/2003 6.2.4.2.6.1.9 (i) validity of license subject to judicial review; 6.2.4.2.6.1.10 (j) appropriate compensation subject to judicial review; 6.2.4.2.6.1.11 (k) anti-competitive practices by the patent holder taken into consideration 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.1 Members are not obliged to apply the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.1.1 Used by Competition Commission of South Africa to provoke issuance of "voluntary" licenses to generic companies for HIV cocktails (December 2003) 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.1.1.1 (a) monopoly prices unreasonably impede access to medicine 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.1.1.2 (b) refusal to issue voluntary licenses to generics abusively impedes competition 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.1.1.3 (c) refusal to issue voluntary licenses denies access to "essential facilities" 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.2 The need to correct anti-competitive practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases. 6.2.4.2.6.1.11.3 Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of authorization if and when the conditions which led to such authorization are likely to recur 6.2.4.2.7 Enablement Requirement (29.1) 6.2.4.2.7.1 Mandatory enablement requirement 6.2.4.2.7.2 Optional best-mode requirement 6.2.4.2.8 Term 6.2.4.2.8.1 20 years from filing (Art. 33) 6.2.4.2.8.1.1 "The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date" 6.2.4.2.8.2 No maximum 6.2.4.2.8.2.1 E.g., U.S. 35 USC §154 6.2.4.2.9 Mandatory enforcement (41-49) 6.2.4.2.9.1 "fair and equitable" procedures 6.2.4.2.9.2 Decisions in writing 6.2.4.2.9.3 Damages 6.2.4.2.9.4 Injunctions 6.2.4.2.10 Gaps in harmonization: 6.2.4.2.10.1 “First to file” vs. “first to invent” 6.2.4.2.10.2 Prior-user rights 6.2.4.2.10.3 Exhaustion – 6 6.2.4.2.10.3.1 "For the purposes of dispute settlement under this Agreement, subject to the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights." 6.2.4.2.10.3.2 critical because of the discretion it leaves countries with respect to opportunities for geographic price discrimination 6.2.4.2.10.4 Scope of doctrine of equivalents 6.2.4.2.10.5 Utility Models / Petty Patents 6.2.4.3 Dispute Resolution 6.2.4.3.1 Procedure 6.2.4.3.1.1 Consultation among disputants 6.2.4.3.1.2 WTO Panel considers dispute 6.2.4.3.1.3 Appellate Review within WTO 6.2.4.3.2 Penalties: Cross-sectoral retaliation 6.2.4.4 Assessments 6.2.4.4.1 from standpoint of the IP-heavy industries 6.2.4.4.1.1 PHARMA has received major gains from imposition of product patent protection for drugs 6.2.4.4.1.2 Hollywood has thus far gained less because of poor enforcement 6.2.4.4.2 from standpoint of developing countries 6.2.4.4.2.1 widespread view that, thus far, they have been disadvantaged 6.2.4.4.2.1.1 World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002, Chpt. 5 (2001), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP2002/Resources/gep2002complete.pdf 6.2.4.4.2.2 ongoing debate concerning long-term impact 6.2.4.4.3 from standpoint of global social welfare 6.2.4.4.3.1 extremely difficult to assess because of poor information concerning net impact, both globally and locally, of increased IP protection 6.2.5 Free Trade Agreements 6.2.5.1 History 6.2.5.1.1 soon after TRIPS, US and EU began negotiating bilateral and regional agreements with stricter IP obligations 6.2.5.1.2 impediments to further tightening of IP regime through WTO (e.g., Cancun 2003) has led to increased reliance on this approach 6.2.5.2 Examples 6.2.5.2.1 Recent US bilateral agreements 6.2.5.2.1.1 Jordan (2000) 6.2.5.2.1.2 Chile (2003) 6.2.5.2.1.3 Singapore (2003) 6.2.5.2.1.4 Bahrain (2004) 6.2.5.2.1.5 Australia (2004) 6.2.5.2.1.6 Morocco (2004) 6.2.5.2.2 Recent regional agreements 6.2.5.2.2.1 NAFTA 6.2.5.2.2.2 CAFTA (2004) 6.2.5.2.3 Agreements in process 6.2.5.2.3.1 Korea 6.2.5.2.3.1.1 pending Congressional approval 6.2.5.2.3.2 Panama 6.2.5.2.3.2.1 pending Congressional approval 6.2.5.2.3.3 Colombia 6.2.5.2.3.3.1 pending Congressional approval 6.2.5.2.3.4 Thailand 6.2.5.2.3.4.1 USTR status report 6.2.5.2.3.4.2 components of draft agreement 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.1 mandatory subject matter coverage 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.1.1 biological processes, 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.1.2 genes, 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.1.3 gene sequences, 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.1.4 methods of medical treatment 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.2 3 years of additional product patent protection for 2nd uses of drugs 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.3 compulsory licenses limited to: 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.3.1 curb anticompetitive practices 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.3.2 public noncommercial uses 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.3.3 national emergencies 6.2.5.2.3.4.2.4 see Collins-Chase 2008 6.2.5.2.3.5 South African Customs Union (2008) 6.2.5.2.3.5.1 for interim agreement (July 2008), see http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/US-SACU-2008.pdf 6.2.5.2.3.5.2 USTR status report 6.2.5.2.3.6 Malaysia 6.2.5.2.3.6.1 USTR status report 6.2.5.2.3.7 United Arab Emirates 6.2.5.2.3.7.1 USTR status report 6.2.5.3 Typical provisions 6.2.5.3.1 patent duration 6.2.5.3.1.1 parties must extend patent terms to offset unreasonable delays in granting patents 6.2.5.3.2 limits on compulsory licenses 6.2.5.3.3 limits on parallel importation 6.2.5.3.4 limits on access to clinical testing data 6.2.5.3.5 prohibition on registration of generics until expiration of drug patents 6.2.6 European Systems 6.2.6.1 European Patent Organization 6.2.6.1.1 History 6.2.6.1.1.1 First discussed in 1950s 6.2.6.1.1.2 Signed 1973 6.2.6.1.1.3 Effective 1977 6.2.6.1.1.4 Modified only once since 6.2.6.1.2 Membership 6.2.6.1.2.1 38 member countries (EU members plus several others) 6.2.6.1.2.2 4 "Extension States" 6.2.6.1.2.3 map 6.2.6.1.3 Centralized filing and granting system 6.2.6.1.3.1 Procedure 6.2.6.1.3.1.1 File single application for European Patent with EPO (Munich) 6.2.6.1.3.1.2 EPO conducts prior-art search 6.2.6.1.3.1.3 Publication (18 months after filing) 6.2.6.1.3.1.4 Report of EPO Examiner 6.2.6.1.3.1.4.1 Response if appropriate 6.2.6.1.3.1.5 Patent granted (3-7 years after filing) 6.2.6.1.3.1.6 Opposition (may be filed within 9 months of grant) 6.2.6.1.3.1.7 Conversion to national patents in designated member countries (within 3 months of grant) 6.2.6.1.3.2 Usage 6.2.6.1.3.2.1 Aprx. 80,000 applications per year 6.2.6.1.4 Substantive Provisions 6.2.6.1.4.1 Subject Matter (52, 53, 57) 6.2.6.1.4.2 Novelty (54, 55) 6.2.6.1.4.3 Inventive Step (56) 6.2.6.1.4.4 Infringement (69) 6.2.6.1.5 Limitations 6.2.6.1.5.1 Harmonization is limited 6.2.6.1.5.1.1 Rights of employees; rules of co-ownership; remedies all left to member countries 6.2.6.1.5.1.2 Ambiguity in some of the substantive provisions 6.2.6.1.5.2 No judicial centralization 6.2.6.1.5.2.1 Enforcement requires separate suits in individual countries 6.2.6.1.5.2.2 No appellate system for reconciling divergent interpretations 6.2.6.1.5.2.3 Examples 6.2.6.1.5.2.3.1 Epilady litigation: scope of equivalents doctrine (69 & Protocol) 6.2.6.1.5.2.3.1.1 Infringement found in Belgium, Germany, Italy 6.2.6.1.5.2.3.1.2 Infringement not found in UK, Austria, Netherlands 6.2.6.1.5.3 Unanimity necessary (in practice) for revision 6.2.6.1.5.3.1 Revision system of 172 never invoked 6.2.6.1.5.3.2 Antiquated systems applicable to novelty and (arguably) software & biotechnology 6.2.6.2 European Union Patent 6.2.6.2.1 Prolonged Struggle to establish a unified EU-wide Patent 6.2.6.2.1.1 Community Patent Convention 6.2.6.2.1.1.1 Signed in 1975 6.2.6.2.1.1.2 1989 Revision 6.2.6.2.1.1.2.1 Provided for appeal from national courts to a Community Patent Appeals Court 6.2.6.2.1.1.2.2 Mandatory translation of all applications into all EC languages 6.2.6.2.1.1.3 Too few states ratified it; never implemented 6.2.6.2.1.2 Proposed Community Patent Regime 6.2.6.2.1.2.1 Structure 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.1 Single application with EPO 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.1.1 National patent offices could receive and forward applications 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.2 Issuance of single Community Patent, applicable throughout EU 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.3 Translation 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.3.1 Application in English, French, or German 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.3.2 Claims translated into other 2 languages 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.3.3 Claims translated into all other EC languages "within reasonable time" 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.4 Centralized Interpretation and Enforcement (under auspices of EJC) 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.4.1 Single Community Patent Court (to be formed by 2010) 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.4.1.1 National courts retain jurisdiction until then 6.2.6.2.1.2.1.4.2 Appellate review by Court of First Instance of European Communities 6.2.6.2.1.2.2 History 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.1 3/3/2003: Competitiveness Council of Ministers announces "common political approach" 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.2 4/16/2003: President of EU Council distributes revised proposal for Council Regulation 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.3 2/2/2004: European Commission proposes two Council Decisions for judicial centralization 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.4 3/2004: Competitiveness Council fails to agree on details 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.5 4/2007: European Commission issues white paper, seeking to revive the plan 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6 12/2009: EU Competitiveness Council makes significant progress 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.1 agreements 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.1.1 Process to fix and distribute renewal fees 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.1.2 Functioning of the Enhanced Partnership 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.1.3 Establishment of a unified patent litigation system 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.1.3.1 movement toward a European and EU Patents Court (EEUPC), which would have exclusive jurisdiction over EU and the European patents 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.2 next steps 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.2.1 Agreeing on an approach to regulate the translation of EU patents 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.2.1.1 early in 2009, EU Council had recommended a central translation service 6.2.6.2.1.2.2.6.2.2 Revising the European Patent Convention (EPC), to which the EU accedes 6.2.6.2.1.3 Initiative to Create 12-country patent system 6.2.6.2.1.3.1 subset of EU countries hoping to offer a patent applicable in them all, without the costs of translation 6.2.6.2.1.3.1.1 UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden 6.2.6.2.1.3.1.2 opposition by Spain and Italy 6.2.6.2.1.3.1.3 Not a major reform; essentially cost-reduction strategy 6.2.6.2.1.3.2 History 6.2.6.2.1.3.2.1 procedure: "enhanced cooperation mechanism" 6.2.6.2.1.3.2.2 approved by committee of Parliament, Jan. 31, 2011 6.2.6.2.1.3.2.3 Parliament approves 6.2.6.2.1.3.2.4 March 2011: ECJ rejects it as not adapted to EU law 6.2.6.2.1.3.2.5 September 2011: 3 professors at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid advocated similar set of reforms, to be applicable throughout Europe 6.2.6.2.2 Current Status 6.2.6.2.2.1 All of EU members except Spain, Italy, and Croatia have agreed to establish an integrated patent system 6.2.6.2.2.2 3 languages: English, German, French 6.2.6.2.2.3 unified judicial system 6.2.6.2.2.4 planned implementation: 2014