2013-04-17 (Week 3) RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Spring 2013 1 Please take your seat Rob* Rob* David Patrick* Emily* Andy* Jenn Scott Asa Scott * Asa

2013-04-17 (Week 3) RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Spring 2013 1

Please take your seat

Rob* David Patrick*Emily* Andy* JennScott * Asa ChinyereHernan Jennifer Helio*

Helio Andy Jenn Chinyere Scott Patrick EmilyHernan David* Rob Asa

Andy Jenn* Asa Scott Helio ChinyereJennifer Hernan* Patrick Emily Rob David

ScreenRJM

DOOR

Whi

tebo

ard

* Scribe This week's scribes: TOA: Helio, DavidTeacher's HW: Patrick

This week - PurpleWeek 2 - BlackWeek 1- Grayshadow = law student


Today’s Agenda

• Finish Review of / Introduction to Patent Law: P!=C!=T; WHAT IS A PATENT (CONCRETE).

• Simulation schedule/5 person teams + coach to both• At break: Figure out best time for Instant Patent Law• SSI v TEK and KSR• ~9:45 Adjourn

• 8:30 Break (timekeeper needed)• 8:40 Resume


Teacher's Homework (per Andy)

1) How can we watch videos of past simulations?Links sent earlier today

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Spring 2013 4

To calculate the expiration of a patent, you need to know these dates. Then consult DOCS/TERMCALC.DOC on the 2012 course website (or read the statute).The calculated date is not your final answer, however. You must also consider - nonpayment of maintenance fees - extensions due to delays by the government.

But there’s good news! This is just FYI.

The patents you use for simulations will be assumd to be in full force and effect at all relevant times…

2013-04-17 (Week 3)

http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev.12/DOCS/TERMCALC.DOC


Reading a Patent – Who asked you to?

• AI – to design around it to avoid infringement– to challenge validity or enforceability

• PAppl – – to see if you need to disclose (and claim around)– to see if you should buy/license it

• M&A – to evaluate an asset• PO – to evaluate whether you can sue within the bounds

of Rule 11

Why? • AVOID inequitable conduct• COMPLY with

Rule 56 and your duty of candor

• Obtain a solid patent

2013-04-17 (Week 3)

link is to MPEP - it's good for finding cases, statutes and rules (PTO rulesnot Rules of Civil Procedure) . PTO rules are cited 37 CFR 1.[rule#]

Rule 11, F.R. Civ.P., not 37 CFR 1.11

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html


Major Issues of Liability in Patent Law

•Validity•Infringement

Word police note: 'infringe,' in patent law, takes a direct object. Please say, "The accused device infringes the patent. " Please do NOT say, "It infringes ON the patent."

The other part of a patent case, after liability is determined, is DAMAGES, or more generally REMEDIES

2013-04-17 (Week 3)

But first: some abbreviations used on the next slide.AI: Accused InfringerPO: Patent Owner

BOP: burden of proof sometimes called 'burden of persuasion'

QOP: quantum of proof sometimes called 'standard of proof'

Judge Grewal mentions burden of production sometimes also called 'burden of going forward.'

Understanding that means understanding 'prima facie case,' too.

The Different Quanta of ProofPrep: Preponderance of the Evidence = 50%+ЄC&C: Clear and Convincing Evidence = ~70%??BARD: [evidence] beyond a reasonable doubt =99.99%?



2013-04-17 (Week 3)

How many sdo we needon this slide?


Validity

Infringement

AI

Preponderance

C&C

PO

WHO HAS THE

BOP?

WHAT IS THE QOP?

How do BOP and QOP affect the litigators and scientific experts?


2013-04-17 (Week 3)


P-I-S v P.A.Situation A

Patent-in-suit = NEWPrior Art Patent = OLD

Situation BPatent-in-suit = OLDPatent on accused device = NEW

Is the New patent valid over the Old patent?

Is the Old patent infringed by someone PRACTICING

the New patent?

New Patent Look at New's CLAIMS Look at New's SPECIFICATION (to see what people do

in order to PRACTICE New’s patent)

Old Patent Look at Old's SPECIFICATION (to see what it TEACHES)

Look at Old's CLAIMS

Q.When do you look at the CLAIMS? A.When the patent is ________

2013-04-17 (Week 3)

This is the most important slide of the entire quarter.

This is

the most

importa

nt

slide o

f the e

ntire quart

er.


SSI v TEK - Individual Questions - 1

HC Question 1 on page 2.1R Question 2 on page 2.1 AW Question 3 on page 2.1

P Question 4 on page 3E Question 5 on page 4.2S Question 5 on page 4.2

AC Question 6 on 4.2 D Question 7 on page 6.2JR Question 7 on page 6.2

C Question 8 on page 8.1HS Question 8 on page 8.1 JE Question 8 on page 8.1

HC

R

AW







SSI disputes that the patent discloses [TEK's contention concerning] simultaneous or distinct streams of compressed air that force sealant out of the container and also "continuously" or "directly" direct air into the tire.

{4. What does this sentence suggest about TEK's product? Why else would TEK argue this? -RJM}

P{In this Order, the court does not address what the level of skill is or what education and experience would characterize the HYPOTHETICAL person of ordinary skill in the art. Experts – who by definition are not ordinary – can and do testify to the state of knowledge of this hypothetical person at the relevant time in the past (usually many years before trial). 5. At trial, what might the parties’ technological experts testify about? –RJM}

E S







DJR

These uses suggest that the absence of "integral" in the description of the receptacle is not happenstance. Without more, the court will not impose "integral" as a limitation. The claim term will be given its plain and ordinary meaning. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (cautioning against reading limitations that may be present in the specification into the claim).

{6. Why is it wrong to read a limitation from the specification into the claim? Who would urge doing so and why? When should it be permitted?

AC



"an enclosure that may be formed

within and as an integral part of the housing

or as a separate structure

that sealingly receives air and/or tire sealant."

"an enclosure that may be formed within and as an integral part of the housing or as a separate structure that sealingly receives air and/or tire sealant."What "sealingly receives"? The "separate structure" or the "enclosure"?





remove the ambiguity by reversing the order


SSI v TEK Individual Questions - 5





"an enclosure

that sealingly receives air and/or tire sealant.

that may be formed within and as an integral part of the housing


"

Replace the second THAT with 'and' or 'which'? Replace 'that may be formed' with 'the enclosure being formed...'?

Replace 'within and as' with 'as and within' so that both phrases lead with an AS. This helps the reader who is looking for parallelisms.







{8. Of the 10 claim terms and analyses, which did you like the best? Define “like.” Which did you like the least?-RJM}


SSI Claim Construction -1

Study the approach! It gives you a good idea about how lawyers (and later, their experts) confront a new patent that their client - (PO) is asserting or is thinking about asserting by writing The Letter

(PO) is considering offering a license, possibly after writing The Letter

(AI) is accused of infringing or thinks the other side is thinking about it and/or is considering starting a DJ (like SSI did)

(AI) is considering taking a license, either because it received The Letter or otherwise

or AI has found the patent and is about to make a product that might infringe and wonders what to do



"intrinsic evidence" = page 1.2 boldfaceclaimsspecificationprosecution history

"extrinsic evidence" = page 2.2 after 2nd cite to Phillips.dictionariestestimony (whether by inventors, experts or others)



MYTH: the 'inventor' authors the specification and correspondence with the PTO. ("response to office action" aka "amendment")

What's bad about this myth?

TEK and the "direct and continuous stream" of compressed air. What How Why? p.3.

Using prosecution history. Using particular embodiments.


SSI Claim Construction - 4

"Entrained" - Did the court 'read in' a limitation from the specification in the interpretation that this means "drawn" [into the air flow path].Or did the court [merely] find a synonym?

Review: READ IN (INTO) != READ ON (now called "MAP")

READ IN(INTO) v. CONSTRUE

CONSTRUE: Is the construction for all time forever after?


Markman Orders and other things that cause cases to settle

{In the Northern District of California by Local Rule, and elsewhere either by Local Rule or judge's rule, the parties must, well before trial, identify all the disputed terms in the claims (or as many terms as the court is willing to consider, usually about ten as here) and propose constructions for them. The court then construes the terms, sometimes choosing one of the parties' constructions, sometimes crafting its own. These constructions then govern subsequent motions, such as motions for summary judgment, as well as the trial. Experts are often involved in assisting with claim construction and sometimes present a tutorial in court. Usually the hearing on claim construction consists of attorney argument but it can include live testimony from experts. The Construction Order, sometimes called a Markman Order after a famous case about claim construction (full cite in opinion above) often leads to early settlement. These orders, generally unappealable until there is a final judgment, can be overturned by the appellate court. When that happens, a new trial is usually ordered. More in class about factors leading to settlement, and the role of experts at early stages of the litigation. -RJM}page 2-3


Obviousness(SSI-SJ, KSR), Field Trip, TOAs

TOA lists - week 1 and week 2(known , clueless, in between)Rob: infringement, reissue, inequitable conductScott: prosecution, litigation, work product privilege

on homepage, linked below date (see next slide)

KSR SSI Trialandy frustrated amused tues pm

(+reporter)asa annoyed flabbergasted tues pmchinyere surprised surprised mon alldavid(exempt)

wed am(+reporter)

emily mystified surprised tues pmhelio surprised surprised mon all

(+reporter)hernan amused intrigued wed amjenn vexed unimpressed tues pmpatrick intrigued impressed tues pmrob confused surprised TOAsscott confused frustrated TOAs

http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev.13/DOCS/TOA_WK1.TXT

http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev.13/DOCS/TOA_WK2.TXT


Field Trip

KSR SSI Trialandy frustrated amused tues pm

(+reporter)asa annoyed flabbergasted tues pmchinyere surprised surprised mon alldavid(exempt)

wed am(+reporter)



What did we miss by not going Monday?

Tuesday afternoon?

Today?

Rob and Scott: question these people!

Trippers: What was most surprising? As expected? Difficult?


SSI KSR SSI Trial

andy frustrated amused tues pm(+reporter)

asa annoyed flabbergasted tues pmchinyere surprised surprised mon alldavid(exempt)

wed am(+reporter)



explain yourself!

Also discuss:Good guy and bad guy determination

Credibility of COUNSEL not just witnessesRole of Experts

Andy (validity v. infringement during prosecution)Asa (Japanese patents)


KSR - 1 KSR SSI Trial

andy frustrated amused tues pm(+reporter)

asa annoyed flabbergasted tues pmchinyere surprised surprised mon alldavid(exempt)

wed am(+reporter)



Explain yourself!

Graham Analysis - KSR p.2.1Primary Considerations: 1. Scope and content of the PA, 2. Differences between the CLAIMED invention and the PA, 3. Level of Skill in the ArtSecondary Considerations: Long-felt unmet need, commercial success, failure of others, [etc.] but must have NEXUS.


KSR - 2

P.3 Who wrote the facts?

P.3 Seven (7) pieces of prior art to render the claimed combination obvious???

P. 5. Word Police: Claims do not disclose. Likewise, the specification does not claim. Nor does the prior art.

P. 5. Really bad greedy sleazy PO or normal PO?

P. 6 The odor of inequitable conduct

P. 7 A 'rigid' approach? Scott as defender!

P.8 teaches AWAY. Remember: AWAY.


KSR - 3

P. 9 A person or ordinary skill in the Supreme Court Justice art?

P. 9 Market Demand? On summary judgment?

P. 9 A later patent deprives an earlier one of its 'value or utility'?

P.10 Start with the problem the inventor wanted to solve, but ignore the inventor's avowed purpose or particular motivation??

P. 11: KSR's own patent application??

P. 14: Convincing evidence (on SJ) of obviousness of adding Asano to fixed pivot point.


TOA Lists

on homepage, linked below date


Next WeekNext Week: Guest Speaker: Alicia Frostick Shah, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis

[also MMPS from patent law 2004 and advanced patent seminar 2005]

In preparation, read a transcript from a claim construction hearing in a case she was following. Read the SJ/Cl Const order that followed that hearing (and consideration of voluminous evidence and oversized briefs)

Grad students: find some patents for possible use in the simulation.

Law students: check if those patents have been litigated.


SSI v TEK - Claim Construction Winner? 6:6

andy TEK asa SSI chinyere TEK emily SSI david TEK helio TEK hernan TEK jenn SSI jennifer TEK patrick SSI rob SSIscott SSI

Documents

2013-04-17 (Week 3) RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Spring 2013 1 Please take your seat Rob* Rob* David Patrick* Emily* Andy* Jenn Scott Asa Scott * Asa