Patent Law Unknown Unknown

PATENT PATENT LAW L AW OUTLINE NOTE: Standards of Review Fact – clearly erroneous (if decision by judge); deference given to lower court Fact – substantial error (if decision by jury); deference given to jury Law – de novo; NO deference given to lower court

I.

OVERVIEW [see pgs 6!"6 for good overview#

II.

PATENT PA TENT CONSTRUCTION - § ! A.

$ypes of %lai&s'  * ++! , 

.

Inde"endent C#ai$ – does not refer to any ot-er clai&

!.

%e"endent C#ai$ – refers to one or &ore clai&s in t-e patent (e.g. / wind&ill wind&ill according to %lai& 0)

*.

+.

a.

1ependent clai& s"e&ifies so$e feat're of t-e general invention clai&ed in t-e referenced independent clai&

 b.

1ependent clai& is narrower t-an t-e referenced independent clai&; dependent clai& incorporates all li&itations set fort- in referenced clai& ( *' +)

c.

W(at (a""ens w(en referen&ed inde"endent &#ai$ inva#idated) 1oes not necessarily &ean t-at dependent clai&s are invalid eit-er since t-ey are narrower (less li2ely to anticipate or be obvious) [pg !#

d.

Converse3 if independent clai& is valid' dependent clai& &ust be valid  b4c it is narrower 

S&o"e of Listed C#ai$s – independent clai&s are listed in order' staring wit- t-e &ost broad and wor2ing down to t-e least broad

%lai& Language (pg *5)

.

O"en C#ai$: +road " an invention &o$"risin, ele&ents /' ' and %; clai& covers any e&bodi&ent of invention -aving ele&ents /' ' %' and any additional ele&ents

!.

C#osed C#ai$: Li$ited – an invention &onsistin, of ele&ents /' ' and %; invention li&ited to just t-ose ele&ents' so product using /' ' %' and 1 does not infringe



*.

C.

7atent $er& $er& – *8 years fro& date of filing

. %.

E&e"tion: Provisiona# A""#i&ations – * years fro& filing date

7ublication – patent applications in t-e 9.:. are publis-ed after 5 &ont-s if t-at sa&e invention is t-e subject of corresponding foreign prosecution in a country t-at reuires  publication after 5 &ont-s &ont-s

.

III.

 ele&ents /' ' and %; a In-+etween – an invention &onsistin, essentia## of  ele&ents  product t-at contained contained ele&ent /' /' ' %' and 1 would NO$ infringe infringe if ele&ent 1 &ade t-e product essentially different fro& t-e clai&ed invention

7rior to # E"eri$entation (fact analysis) [Wands

a.

?uantity of eBperi&entation necessary

 b.

/&ount of direction or guidance presented

c.

7resence or absence of wor2ing eBa&ples

d.

 Nature of invention

e.

:tate of t-e prior art

f.

Celative s2ill of t-ose in t-e art

g.

7redictability or unpredictability of art

()

-.

readt- of clai&s

()

C.

t-e &ore predictable t-e field of tec-nology' t-e less disclosure necessary to enable a broad clai&; :O' broad clai& can be enabled by disclosure of single e&bodi&ent w-en result is  predictable (pg *' and notes on pg !H5); 7AO:@$/ would not -ave found reference

-.

C#ai$ Lists a Ran,e  – if clai& lists a range' and prior art falls w4in t-at range' t-en t-e clai& is anticipated ( Titanim !etals' pg !5H)

i.

,en's v. s"e&ies (clot-ing to soc2)' a reference t-at discloses a species anticipates a later clai& to a genus containing t-at species' 9$ not vice versa (reference disclosing genus and clai& listing species) (pg !H' >5*#

a.

 b.

9irst' product &ust be t-e subject of a &o$$er&ia# offer for sale

()

loo2 at t-e totality of t-e transaction and deter&ine if transaction was co&&ercial (i.e. would t-e Esales activity -elp inventor deter&ine value of patentI) [pg >5#

(*)

:-a& sales do NO$ count as on"sale bar 

(!)

>enera# offer to sell does not count' ti&e would run w-en invention delivered; but s"e&ifi& offer would count as sale (pg >HH' -ypos)

()

E&#'sive# #i&ensin, t-e invention does not trigger t-e on sale  bar 

Se&ond' invention &ust be ready for patenting

()

Driting " inventor can describe &et-od w4 sufficient clearness and precision to enable t-ose s2illed in &atter to understand  process; a uestion re3 ena;#e$ent rat-er t-an conception (pg >H6); OC 

(*)

Ceduced to 7ractice

(a)

c. .

C$7 " invention does NO$ -ave to be reduced to  practice to be Eon sale; inventor can sell product before it is ready b4c inventor can obtain patent before invention is reduced to practice (pg >H*)

T(ird Part Sa#es – sales and offers to sell by t-ird parties &ay also create statutory bars for inventors ( )bbott %abs $. Gene$a' pg 686!">6#

()

Loo2 for eBplicit or i&plicit confidentiality agree&ent

(*)

@n contrast to !oleclon' t-e corset springs in  *gbert ' w-ic- was given to ot-ers for free and unrestricted

7ublic use can be caused by t-e inventor OC t(ird "art 'nre#ated or 'nHnown to inventor' s-owing invention to public ( +axter ' pg 685)

()

:o' even if t-e inventor is 2eeping t-e invention secret (not

6

 public)' an un2nown person &ay s-ow -is version of invention in public' w-ic- causes t-e inventorGs cloc2 to run too; encourages inventors to file uic2ly; 9$

(*)

c.

secret co&&ercial activity of inventor &ay constitute public use' 9$ secret co&&ercial activity by un2nown t-ird"party would  NO$ constitute a public use (pg 6)

 NO$ every detail of patent &ust be disclosed for public use' need only to disclose t-ose features clai&ed in t-e patent to euate public use (pg 6>)

!.

Sa#e v. Li&ense – t-e sale of t-e product or process of t-e patent ( so$et(in, "rod'&ed a&&ordin, to an invention) is public use' 9$ licensing or assigning t-e rig-ts to patent ( invention itse#f is s';e&t of transa&tion) is NO$ public use (pg >6)

*.

E"eri$enta# Use %o&trine – perfecting or co&pleting an invention to t-e point of deter&ining t-at it will wor2 for its intended purpose

a.

%efense for Inventor – ne,ates finding of public use' if use &erely eBperi&ental and controlled by inventor (pg >55)

()

(*)

 b.

@nventor &ust retain control during t-e eBperi&ental period; invention can NO$ be used by ot-ers during t-e eBperi&ental  period

(a)

Ka2ing ot-ers pledge confidentiality is a factor towards finding eBperi&ental use (pg 688)

(b)

 No co&&ercial eBploitation is factor towards finding eBperi&ental use

(i)

Po#i& " @f not eBploiting' does not violate policy of li&iting ter& of &onopoly

(ii)

Kar2et tests P co&&ercial eBploitation

Is s';e&t 'se e"eri$enta#) – uestion of law; &ust loo2 at totality of circu&stances (pg >)

Ne's " if t-ere was so&e ot-er reason w-y product was successful (e.g. regulations now per&it it' big &ar2eting' large financing for advertising' invention not &ain source of co&panyGs success' etc.)' t-en does NO$ weig- for nonobvious

e.

Long felt but unsolved needs

f.

Failure of ot-ers to produce t-e invention (answer to proble&)

g.

Ot-ers copied

-.

Ceview of file wrapper' discussing rejected and resub&itted clai&s

O#d E#e$ents Co$;ined – a device t-at co&bines old ele&ents is not necessarily obvious; &ust use t-e ra-a& test to deter&ine if t-e co&bined effect is nonobvious

.

if patent &erely rearranges old ele&ents' but t-e ele&ents perfor& t-e sa&e

*

function' it is obvious (&erely s2illed &ec-anic' not inventor)

9.

Red'&tion of Pres'$"tion – in litigation' if additional invalidating prior art is discovered t-at was NO$ before t-e 7$O during prosecution' t-en t-e presu&ption t-at an issued patent is valid is reduced (pg H8)

.

>.

7olicy – do not need deference to 7$O since it did not review t-at prior art in deter&ining patent

Co$;inin, Prior Art – obviousness can NO$ be establis-ed by co&bining pieces of  prior art reference suggests co&bining t-e features actually co&bined in t-e invention at issue

.

%orollary – obviousness cannot be establis-ed by co&bining pieces of prior art a;sent so&e tea&(in,5 s',,estion5 or in&entive supporting t-e co&bination

!.

0indsi,(t – to avoid -indsig-t"obviousness' apply rigorous application of reuire&ent of teac-ing or &otivation to co&bine prior art references ( embic/a# ' pg H*)

a.

 b.

0.

I.

=vidence of teac-ing or &otivation K9:$ be &#ear and "arti&'#ar;  broad conclusory state&ents re3 teac-ing of &ultiple references no enougPTO (as ;'rden to s-ow obviousness; t-erefore' did t-e 7$O produce evidence or just &a2e general state&ents about -ow references &o'#d be connectedI 7$O needs evidence in 2eeping w4 ra-a& test (pg H!")

SC Trend K W(i&( Predates Creation of 9ed. Cir. /!2  [pg H86#

.

 8! (*) was supposed to overrule  )P Gs synergistic approac- (8) [patent results in an effect greater t-an t-e su& of t-e several effects ta2en separately#

!.

in 2eeping' Graham () standard (&ec-anic v. inventor) w-ic- lowered bar for patentability

*.

9$ Sa#raida ()

)

*6

(a)

,enera# "res'$"tion " ordinary understood (by 7AO:@$/) &eaning of clai& language; objective  baseline

(i) (b)

()

loo2 to dictionaries' reference wor2s' etc. (eBtrinsic evidence)

a#teration fro$ ordinar $eanin, – if t-e clai& ter& is vague or deprives clarity' OC t-e patentee -as beco&e its own leBicograp-er' t-en can loo2 at intrinsi& and "er(a"s ot(er etrinsi& evidence

Co$$ents on Provin, A#ternative Inter"retation

(a)

need significant proof t-at alternative &eaning is reuired (e.g. teBtual reference in actual clai& language w4 w-ic- to associate alternative construction' suc- as referring to written description) ( "ohnson World,ide); gives notice to 7AO:@$/ re3 alternative definition ( 0nno$a at H)

(b)

7arty will argue t-at specification and prosecution -istory evidence alternative construction by patentee to support4refute infringe&ent

(c)

For alternative' description needs to describe ter& w4 &#arit5 de#i;erateness5 and "re&ision ( "ohnson World,ide at E3ENT - %OCTRINE O9 E4UIVALENTS +'rden of Proof  – 7atentee -as burden to prove infringe&ent' literal or 1O=

 NO intent reuire&ent' just li2e literal infringe&ent ( Warner-"en#ins)

A.

%efinition of %OE – does NO$ eBpand clai&s' t-e scope of patent protection as defined  by t-e clai&s re&ains t-e sa&e' 9$ rat-er application of 1O= eBpands t-e rig-t to eBclude to e'iva#ents of w-at is clai&ed (pg E3ENT K CONTRI+UTOR8 A.

:teps per  *H(c)

.

K9:$ find dire&t infrin,e$ent by user of allegedly infringing device' /N1

!.

t-en deter&ine if 1 was &ontri;'tor #ia;#e

a.  b.

Hnow#ed,e of t-e activity t-at is a##e,ed to be infringing (not reuired t-at it was infringing)' /N1 Hnow#ed,e of t-e patent

+.

S';stantia# Non-Infrin,in, Uses – defense against contributory liability

C.

E(a'stion %o&trine – once ite& sold' consu&er can use w4out infringing; sold ite& no longer under patent &onopoly (pg 8*!)

%.

Re"air v. Re&onstr'&tion – repairing ite& does NO$ infringe patent on sold device; 9$ reconstructing sold device (a lot of repair) would infringe

E.

.

=Bception to Cepair – provision in sale pro-ibits repair 

!.

Cepair or reconstruction is 'estion of #aw

Ind'&e$ent ( *H(b)) – does not reuire E2nowingly' but t-ere &ust be so&e level of 2nowledge to -old 1 liable

.

no passive induce&ent (i.e. failure to ta2e steps to stop infringe&ent) (pg 8!8)

!*

I.

II.

ALLOCATION O9 POWER IN PATENT S8STE3 A.

Fed. %ir review of 7$O fact finding is court4agency standard' w-ic- is slig-tly lower t-an t-e court4court standard of clearly erroneous

+.

7$O Culings on Law – Che$ron 1eference (pg 6H)

.

w-en 7$O using its aut-ority re3 rules' Fed. %ir. &ust give t-e rulings deference

!.

w-en 7$O just co&&enting w4out aut-ority' no deference

%E9ENSE K REEA3INATION / §§ *@-*@*2 A.

+.

=B 7arte CeeBa&ination (pg *8>)

.

/nyone can co&&ence reeBa&ine by de&onstrating t-at prior art Epatents or  printed publications raise a substantial new uestion of patentability affecting t-e validity of an iss'ed &#ai$

!.

validity uestion &ust be new and s';stantia#

*.

7$O -as t-ree &ont-s to deter&ine w-et-er reuest for reeBa&ination is valid

1.

reeBa&ination cannot broaden scope of clai&s (

)

@nter 7artes CeeBa&ination (pg *) – allows t-ird party full participation in reeBa&ination

.

9$' t-ird party cannot c-allenge oardGs decision in court' alt-oug- patentee can

III. %E9ENSE K %OCTRINE O9 INE4UITA+LE CON%UCT A.

7$O Cule >6 – 1uty to 1isclose (pg *6)

.

 public interest is best served w-en 7$O is aware and evaluates teac-ings of all infor&ation &aterial to patentability

!.

t-e duty to disclose is dee&ed satisfied if all info 2now to be &aterial to  patentability of any clai& was cited by 7$O or sub&itted to 7$O by applicant

*.

D-at is E&aterialI (pg *H)

a.

7rior art NO$ cu&ulative of infor&ation already or record; /N1

 b.

=stablis-es by itself or in co&bination w4 so&et-ing else' t-e unpatentability of clai&' OC 

!!

c. 1.

+.

Cefutes or inconsistent w4 position ta2en by applicant in response to 7$O O/

NOTE K Re;'tta# for Patentee – patentee needs ,ood fait( e"#anation ; could argue t-at t-e o&itted prior art is () not &aterial or (*) &erely cu&ulative

$-ree"7art $est

.

3ateria#it (issue of fact' clearly erroneous)

a.

 b.

:ub&it inaccurate (false) infor&ation OC Fail to disclose pertinent infor&ation

()

 broader t-an fraud b4c covers o&issions

(*)

=Ba&ples3 o&it prior art' failure to note public use and on"sale  bars' false affidavits re3 dates of invention' and doctored data supporting affidavits

Ceuires proof by &#ear and &onvin&in, of a t(res(o#d de,ree of &ateriality of t-e nondisclosed or false infor&ation

()

c.

!.

7E83 $est for E T(res(o#d %e,ree – w-et-er t-ere is a s';stantia# #iHe#i(ood t-at a reasona;#e ea$iner would -ave considered t-e o&itted reference of false infor&ation i&portant in deciding w-et-er to allow t-e application to issue as patent (pg **8)

Overall 1egree of :i&ilarity " Kissing &aterial does not -ave to anticipate or render clai& obvious to be E&aterial' it &erely needs to be  pertinent' suc- t-at t-e 7$O would want to see it and &a2e its own conclusion

()

Ot-er &aterials o&itted' besides prior art' could fell under ineuitable conduct (e.g. o&ission of co"owner' false affidavit)

(*)

+est 3ode – failure to disclose' or &islead about' best &ode can invalidate patent under ineuitable conduct (pg *6)

Intent (issue of fact' clearly erroneous)

a.

%an prove wit- dire&t or indire&t eviden&e; proof of direct sc-e&ing is not reuired

 b.

=vidence of @ntent – prior art cited against foreign applications for sa&e  patent' applicant -as license fro& prior art owner' patent involved in litigation re3 senior patent

c.

 NO ross Negligence – per 3ingsdo,n' gross negligence by itself is  NO$ enoug- to infer intent to deceive (pg *>)

!

() *.

+a#an&in, 3ateria#it and Intent (issue of law' de novo)

a.

C.

:liding :cale – t-e &ore &aterial t-e o&ission or &isrepresentation' t-e lower t-e level of intent reuired to establis- ineuitable conduct OC vice versa (pg *!)

9npatentable

.

if court deter&ines ineuitable conduced occurred' /LL of t-e clai&s are invalidated' not just t-e ones under investigation

a.

IV.

 Need &ore t-an just 2nown or s-ould -ave 2nown to obtain inference; view it in connection wit- ot-er factors

9$' court can loo2 outside t-e clai&(s) subject of t-e litigation to deter&ine if ineuitable conduct occurred (e.g. can loo2 at specification' description' drawings' etc.)

!.

ineuitable conduct can occur at any stage of prosecution' including reissue

*.

Attorne 9ees " ineuitable conduct ualifies as EeBceptional and t-us leads to award of attorney fees (pg *!H)

INVENTORS0IP AN% OWNERS0IP O9 PATENTS A.

 6' Qoint @nventors – need to apply toget-er' no &atter w-at percentage eac- wor2ed on t-e invention

.

!.

oint Invention – product of a collaboration between two or &ore persons wor2ing toget-er to solve t-e proble& addressed (pg *>5)

a.

need not -ave wor2ed toget-er at t-e sa&e ti&e' 9$ t-ey &ust 2now t-at t-ey are wor2ing toget-er (pg *6!)

 b.

need not wor2 on all t-e clai&s toget-er; contribution to one clai& is enoug-

c.

/lt-oug- inventors-ip is 'estion of #aw' Fed. %ir. reviews t-e underlying findin, of fa&t w-ic- up-old a 1%Gs inventors-ip deter&ination for &#ear error (pg *H)

Con&e"tion – co&plete only w-en t-e idea is so clearly defined in inventorGs &ind t-at only ordinary s2ill would be necessary to reduce t-e invention to  practice' w4out eBtensive researc- or eBperi&entation (pg *>5)

a.

Kay turn on w-en inventor -as ability to describe invention w4  particularity (pg *>) – court can a&end certificate if3

.

in error' person na&ed on certificate is not inventor ( $isoinder)' OC 

!.

in error' person not na&ed' and error was not t-e result of o&itted personGs deceptive intent ( nonoinder)

a.

*.

V.

 NO$=3 if ot-er party o&itted person on purpose' &ay be ineuitable conduct' w-ic- would render patent unenforceable to t-e& but NO$ t-e o&itted person (pg *65)

t-ese errors will not invalidate patent

C.

/&ending Owners-ip – can add ot-er inventors to application' as long as o&ission was done wit-out deceitful intent (pg *>6)

%.

Licensing by %o"Owners – eac- owner can license t-e invention w4out t-e consent of t-e ot-er co"owners (pg *>6)

E.

=Bclusive licensees can bring suit w4out t-e patentee' only if t-e licenses owns all t-e rig-ts to t-e patent; in ot-er words' licensee is assignee (pg *.

Kust record conveyance w4 7$O t-ree &ont-s after eBecution or it will not be valid against subseuent purc-asers (pg *)

0.

:-op Cig-t – rig-t to practice t-e invention but not t-e rig-t to license anot-er to do so; s-op rig-t is personal rig-t t-at cannot be assigned (pg !85)

%E9ENSES TO IN9RIN>E3ENT CLAI3: %OU+LE PATENTIN> AN% ANTITRUST 3ISUSE A.

%o';#e Patentin, – can NO$ see2 double patents in atte&pt to lengt-en &onopoly; typically -appens wit- patentee drafts broad clai&s and 7$O divides out application

.

:tatutory 1ouble 7atent " III

!.

 Non":tatutory 1ouble 7atent " III

a.

ter&inal disclai&er ( *>!) – can get anot-er patent on an o;vio's variation of patent' but t-at patentGs ter& ends w-en t-e original patent

!6

eBpires

+.

Antitr'st

.

/ntitrust Kisuse defense " defeats 7@ action and allows 1 to use invention royalty free

a.

VI.

9$' patentee can purge -er &isuse and (presu&ably) reinstate property rig-t (patent) [pg 86>#

RE3E%IES A.

@njunctive Celief ( *5!)

.

7reli&inary @njunctions

a.

!.

w4out 7@ relief' infringers would beco&e &erely co&pulsory licensees as long as t-e litigation lasts (paying da&ages as t-ey went along) (pg 88)

7@ =le&ents (/&aMon' pg 8>)

a.

/ reasonable li2eli-ood of success on t-e &erits



 b.

()

7rove &oving party will li2ely prove t-at ot-er party infringes  patent; /N1

(*)

Koving partyGs infringe&ent clai& will li2ely wit-stand ot-er  partyGs c-allenges to t-e validity and enforceability of t-e patent (pg 8H)

1ifficult to prove w-en basing infringe&ent on 1O= (pg 8>) @rreparable -ar& if an injunction is not granted

()

*.

Pres'$"tion re Irre"ara;#e 0ar$ " presu&ed w-en clear s-owing of patent validity and infringe&ent -as been &ade (pg 8>)

c.

alance of -ards-ips tipping in its favor 

d.

@njunctions favorable i&pact on t-e public interest

/ccordingly3 7@ will not issue if (pg 86)

a.

1 can raise a substantial uestion concerning eit-er infringe&ent or validity' /N1

!H

 b.

7 can NO$ prove t-at 1Gs t-eory lac2s substantial &erit ( i.e. patent would not li2ely wit-stand 1Gs c-allenge' pg 8>)

:tandard of Ceview (lower standard t-an for :Q) – 1 needs only to prove s';stantia# 'estion re3 invalidity to bloc2 PI; does NO$ need to s-ow &#ear and &onvin&in, evidence t-at is reuired for s'$$ar 'd,$ent (pg 8H)

+.

C.

=&inent 1o&ain (pg 86)

.

9.:. ovt. – patentees can only get &oney (reasonable and entire co&pensation)

!.

:tate ovts. – patentees can only get injunction; &oney award would violate  ta&end

7roperty Cules v. Liability Cules

.

in'n&tive relief is in 2eeping w4 "ro"ert rig-t; 9$ $onetar relief is in 2eeping w4 #ia;i#it rules (pg 866)

!.

7roperty Cules – generally are good w-en cost of transferring rig-t a&ongst  parties interested in using t-e& are low co&pared to t-e costs of courts trying to value -ar& after infringe&ent (judicial valuation is inaccurate and difficult)

a.

*.

%.

7atents do well under property law b4c -ard for court to deter&ine da&ages to patent; court would rat-er issue injunction t-an allow continued da&ages

Liability Cules – costs of bargaining before infringe&ent are li2ely to be very -ig- co&pared to judicial calculation of value (easier for court to award da&ages)

a.

$e&porary – involves non"willful infringe&ent; infringer was not aware of patenteeGs rig-t (pg 86H)

 b.

7er&anent (rare) – patentee not selling into &ar2et served by infringer' and t-e &ar2et is dee&ed i&portant to public

1a&ages ( *5)

.

:tatute reuires da&ages awarded t-at are adeuate to co&pensate for t-e infringe&ent (pg 8H8)

!.

Lost 7rofits (ex (ost  da&ages award) – patentee &ust prove (pg 8H8)

a.

1e&and for patented product

 b.

/bsence of acceptable non"infringing substitutes

!5

c.

7atenteeGs &anufacturing and &ar2eting capability to eBploit t-e de&and

() d. *.

consider also w-et-er patentee tends to give no' few' or several licenses

/&ount of profit patentee would -ave &ade

Ceasonable Coyalty (ex ante license agree&ent)– w-en lost profits can NO$ be  proved' patentee is entitled to a reasonable royalty (pg 8H)

a.

D-at is reasonableI $-e rate at w-ic- a licensee would pay as royalty' /N1 yet still &a2e and sell product at profit' 9$ t-en increased since t-ere would be no deterrence if t-e infringer &erely -ad to pay t-e nor&al royalty rate (e.g. a rate freely negotiated between t-e parties) [pg 8H*#

 b.

Factors to %onsider3 w-at was 7G property' w-at eBtent -as 1 ta2en it;  propertyGs usefulness and co&&ercial value; and eBtent of propertyGs use (pg 8H*)

c.

Cate calculating fro& date of infrin,e$ent

d.

%an use eBpert testi&ony to deter&ine reasonable royalty

e.

Fallacy – t-e reasonable royalty analysis &a2es t-e assu&ption t-at t-e 1 &ade a c-oice to pay a royalty' w-en in realty it did worse3 it c-oose to infringe t-e patent (pg 8H5)

() f.

:-ould t-e court give a rate t-at give t-e infringer a profitI :ee&s li2e bad policy (pg 8H5)

1id t-e infringer weig- co&pare benefits of licensing and infringe&entI @f so' t-en infringe&ent was wi##f'# and da&ages are tre;#ed

VII. PATENTA+LE SU+ECT 3ATTER  A.

%ategories of 7atents ( 8' definition of process  88) – 7rocess' Kac-ine' Kanufacture' %o&position of Katter' OC any New and 9seful @&prove&ent $-ereof 

.

anyt-ing under t-e sun t-at is &an &ade

!.

=S%=7$@ON:3 laws of nature' p-ysical and natural p-eno&ena' and abstract ideas

a. *.

/lt-oug- a""#i&ation of a law of nature or &at-e&atical for&ula to a 2nown str'&t're or "ro&ess &ay deserve patent (pg H)

9tility analysis so&eti&es is blurred w4 novelty analysis in pre"* cases and nonobviousness analysis after *

!<

1.

+.

loo2 for transfor$ation; transfor&ation and reduction of article to a different state of t-ing is t-e clue to patentability of a "ro&ess clai& t-at does not include  particular &ac-ines (pg >)

Livin, Or,anis$s – patentable as &anufacture or co&position' as long as t-ey are NO$ naturally occurring; &ust be &an"&ade ( Cha#rabarty' pg H)

.

natural t-ings

a.

can get patent on "ro&ess for eBtracting t-e&' but can NO$ patent t-e natural t-ing itself (pg 8)' OC 

 b.

c-ange t-e c-aracteristics of natural t-ing' t-us creating a new t-ing; e.g. iso#atin, and "'rifin, a co£' gland' cell' or gene (pg 8*)

()   Cha#rabarty see&s to say any artificially created life for& is  patentable; in 2eeping' artificially &ade oysters and ot-er ani&als (pg *5"*)

!.

 NO$=3 $C@7: bars any type of field restriction (pg 66)

*.

+'siness 3et(od E&e"tion – before :tate :treet' could not get patent on  business &et-od; State Street  ruled t-at if a business &et-od &eet t-e reuire&ents' it could get patent

a.

7rior 9ser Cig-ts 1efense ( *H!) – gives defense against alleged infringer of business &et-od' w-en infringer was co&&ercially using  business &et-od at least one year prior to t-e effective filing date of t-e  business &et-od patent

()

$-is defense to a specific filed see&s to violate t-e $C@7:G agree&ents language about no discri&ination a&ongst fields (pg H!)

VIII.  UTILIT8 A.

+.

%o&&ents

.

9tility based on  8Gs Einventions t-at are 'sef'# and  *Gs disclose E&anner and process of &a2ing and 'sin, (pg *)

!.

7ro-ibits filing of patent application in t-e very early stages of researc-

*.

$i&ing " 9tility &easured at t-e ti&e no #ater t-an a""#i&ation fi#in, date (pg *6)

1.

D-et-er an invention -as utility is a 'estion of fa&t ( 2isher ' -andout)

Pra&ti&a# or S"e&ifi& Uti#it  – does t-e invention -ave s';stantia# 'ti#it OC is it frivo#o's and insi,nifi&ant (a basic general or speculative use)I

.

low bar to pass' need only s-ow one specific and substantial utility

!.

?uestions arises in biotec-nology w-ere scientists create co£ but t-en do not 2now w-at it could be used for (pg **