Upload
daria-hunter
View
21
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Novelty Requirement II. Class Notes: February 4, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner. Today’s Agenda. Derivation {35 U.S.C. § 102(f)} Priority & Secret Prior Art {35 U.S.C. § 102(g)}. Derivation. 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Novelty Requirement IIThe Novelty Requirement II
Class Notes: February 4, 2003Class Notes: February 4, 2003
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Professor WagnerProfessor Wagner
2/04/032/04/03 22Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Today’s AgendaToday’s Agenda
1.1. Derivation {35 U.S.C. § 102(f)}Derivation {35 U.S.C. § 102(f)}
2.2. Priority & Secret Prior Art {35 U.S.C. § Priority & Secret Prior Art {35 U.S.C. §
102(g)}102(g)}
2/04/032/04/03 33Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
DerivationDerivation
35 U.S.C. § 102(f)35 U.S.C. § 102(f)A person shall be entitled to a patent A person shall be entitled to a patent
unless . . .unless . . .
(f) (f) he did not himself invent the subject he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented . . .matter sought to be patented . . .
This rule is the ‘derivation’ principle: This rule is the ‘derivation’ principle: you you cannot patent an invention you cannot patent an invention you derivedderived from another.from another.
2/04/032/04/03 44Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
DerivationDerivationGambro Lundia v Baxter HealthcareGambro Lundia v Baxter Healthcare (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fed. Cir. 1997)
• What are the two components of a finding of derivation?• What is the standard for how much information must be
communicated?
• Note: why require corroboration of conception? (What is the practical effect of the corroboration requirement on inventors’ testimony?)
• Is there any real difference between the communication standard used by the D.Ct. and the Gambro court? (What is it?)
• What happens if you prove prior conception by another, but the communication does not enable?
2/04/032/04/03 55Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
DerivationDerivation
What is the policy behind the derivation What is the policy behind the derivation rule?rule?
• Contrast the rule with the Inventorship requirement.
• Consider the ‘bus’ hypothetical on p. 467. o Can you think of reasons we might want to allow
the eavesdropper to get a patent on the invention?
o What if the eavesdropper files a patent application for the invention? What happens to the true inventor?
2/04/032/04/03 66Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
PriorityPriority35 U.S.C. § 102(g)35 U.S.C. § 102(g)A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . .A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . .
(g)(1) during the course of an interference … another inventor involved therein establishes … that before such before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealedconcealed, or
(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.
In determining priority of invention under this In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
2/04/032/04/03 77Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
PriorityPriority
Section 102(g) establishes the US system Section 102(g) establishes the US system as a “first to invent” system.as a “first to invent” system.• Virtually all of the rest of the world has a
“first to file” system.
Consider the relative merits of each Consider the relative merits of each system w/r/t.. system w/r/t.. • Determining the ‘real’ inventor;• Administrative difficulties;• Incentives on the innovation process;• Should we switch to first-to-file?
2/04/032/04/03 88Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
PriorityPriority
The Basic Rule of PriorityThe Basic Rule of Priority
RuleRule: First to reduce to practice = priority• Exception A: Prior conception + diligence
until reduction to practice.• Exception B: The original inventor
abandons, suppresses, or conceals her invention.
2/04/032/04/03 99Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
PriorityPriority
Inventor AInventor A Inventor BInventor B
ConceptionConception Jan. 1, 2001Jan. 1, 2001 Jan. 2, 2001Jan. 2, 2001
Reduction to Reduction to PracticePractice Jan. 3, 2001Jan. 3, 2001 Jan. 4, 2001Jan. 4, 2001
Filing DateFiling Date Jan. 5, 2001Jan. 5, 2001 Jan. 4, 2001Jan. 4, 2001
Priority?Priority?
2/04/032/04/03 1010Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
PriorityPriority
2/04/032/04/03 1111Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Priority: IssuesPriority: Issues
Fiers v RevelFiers v Revel (Fed.Cir. 1993) (Lourie) (Fed.Cir. 1993) (Lourie)• Note: conception is a question of law (court Note: conception is a question of law (court
is free to review de novo on appeal)is free to review de novo on appeal)• The court adopts a particularistic definition The court adopts a particularistic definition
for conception of a chemical compound.for conception of a chemical compound.• What is it?• Why do you think Judge Lourie (PhD Chemist)
adopts this definition? (Do you agree with him?)
• Should enablement be irrelevant to this Should enablement be irrelevant to this issue, as the Court says?issue, as the Court says?
2/04/032/04/03 1212Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Priority: IssuesPriority: Issues
Burroughs Wellcome v Barr Labs.Burroughs Wellcome v Barr Labs. (Fed. (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Mayer)Cir. 1994) (Mayer)
• What is the real issue here? (Why?)• What was Broder’s and Mitsuya’s
contribution to AZT?• Why is this insufficient for joint invention?• When will conception and reduction to
practice coincide? (Why?)
2/04/032/04/03 1313Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Priority: IssuesPriority: Issues
You conceive of an invention (cold You conceive of an invention (cold fusion for producing electricity) on fusion for producing electricity) on January 1, and begin testing to attempt January 1, and begin testing to attempt to reduce to practice.to reduce to practice.a) On February 1, you determine the invention
will work to produce electricity.b) On February 1, you determine the invention
will not generate electricity without the addition of a new Compound X.
What is your date of conception in Case What is your date of conception in Case (a)? Case (b)?(a)? Case (b)?
2/04/032/04/03 1414Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Priority: IssuesPriority: Issues
Reduction to PracticeReduction to Practice
DSL Dynamic SciencesDSL Dynamic Sciences (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Fed. Cir. 1991)• Why was the testing sufficient to reduce the
couplers to practice?• What is the rule for showing reduction to
practice?• An embodiment actually worked for its
intended purpose.
Note: ‘actual’ versus ‘constructive’ RTP.Note: ‘actual’ versus ‘constructive’ RTP.
2/04/032/04/03 1515Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Priority: IssuesPriority: Issues
Abandonment, Suppression, ConcealmentAbandonment, Suppression, Concealment
Fujikawa v WattanasinFujikawa v Wattanasin (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Clevenger)(Clevenger)• The question here is whether the 17/15
month delay between RTP and filing is “abandonment”.o Why is ‘spurring’ disfavored by the law?o What kind of facts would be suggestive of
suppression or concealment?
• Assume you abandon your invention. Can you later obtain a patent on it? (What is your date of conception/RTP?)o Note the problem of § 102(c).
2/04/032/04/03 1616Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Next ClassNext Class
ObviousnessObviousnessThe The GrahamGraham Framework Framework