CONTENTS

Preface to the Fourth Edition xxi Preface to the Third Edition xxiii Preface to the Second Edition xxv Preface to the First Edition xxvii Acknowledgments xxix

CHAPTER 1 History and Architecture of the System 1 Introduction 1 A. A History of Patent Law 6 1. The Classical Period 6 2. European Origins 8 a. The Italian Renaissance 8 b. English Patent Policy and the 12 3. The American Experience 16 4. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 26 Comparative Perspective: The European Patent Convention 32 B. Economics of Patent Law 30 C. The Patent Document and Process of Obtaining Patent Rights 40

CHAPTER 2 Claiming and Disclosing the Invention 61 Introduction 61 A. Claim Interpretation 62 Phillips v. AWH Corp. 63 Comments 74 Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown 79 Comments 85 Policy Perspective: Claim Construction Methodology 90 B. Enablement 91 1. Enablement and Claim Scope 92 O’Reilly v. Morse 92

xi xii Contents

Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co. (The Incandescent Lamp Case) 96 Comments 103 Matt Richtel, Edison . . . Wasn’t He the Guy Who Invented Everything? 111 Policy Perspective: Optimal Claim Scope and Patent Law’s Delicate Balance 113 2. Enablement and Undue Experimentation 114 Cedarapids, Inc. v. Nordberg, Inc. 114 Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. 116 Comments 122 C. Written Description 126 Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company 127 Comments 134 Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp. 139 Comments 142 D. Definiteness 144 Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Comments 150 E. Best Mode 153 Young Dental Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Q3 Special Products, Inc. 154 Comments 157

CHAPTER 3 Eligible Subject Matter and 161 Introduction 161 A. Eligible Subject Matter 162 Diamond v. Chakrabarty 162 Comments 170 Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 172 Comments 182 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 186 Comments 194 Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of ) 201 Comments 211 A Note on Patents, Biotechnology, and the Bayh-Dole Act 212 Comparative Perspective: Biotechnology Patents in Europe 213 Alice Corporation Pty. v. Cls Bank International 213 Comments 221 Comparative Perspective: Software and 232 Business Method Patents in Europe 232 B. Utility 233 1. Operability and the Basic Utility Test 233 Contents xiii

In re Swartz 233 Comments 234 2. Substantial Utility 236 Brenner v. Manson 236 Comments 240 In re Fisher Comments 240 Note on Design Patents 241

CHAPTER 4 and Priority 245 Introduction 245 A. Novelty 246 1. Novelty’s Doctrinal Framework 246 Atlas Powder Company v. IRECO Incorporated 247 Comments 253 2. ‘‘Known or Used’’ Under Section 102(a) 256 Gayler v. Wilder 256 Rosaire v. Baroid Sales Division 258 Comments 261 Patent Reform Perspective: Novelty Under the AIA 264 Comparative Perspective: Defining and Geographical Limitations 268 3. Novelty-Defeating Patent Disclosures Under Section 102(e) 268 Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co. 268 Comments 270 Patent Reform Perspective: The AIA and Prior Art Patent Applications 271 4. Novelty-Defeating Inventive Activity Under Section 102(g)(2) 272 Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corp. 273 Comments 275 Patent Reform Perspective: The AIA, Section 102(g) Prior Art, and Prior User Rights 279 5. Foreign-Based Activity as Prior Art Under Sections 102(e) and (g) 281 In re Hilmer (Hilmer I) 282 In re Hilmer (Hilmer II) 288 Comments 290 Patent Reform Perspective: AIA Overrules Hilmer I and II 292 B. ‘‘Printed Publication’’ 292 In re Klopfenstein 292 Comments 298 Comparative Perspective: Novelty and State of the Art Under the European Patent Convention 301 C. Priority 305 1. Proving Date of Invention 306 Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc. 306 xiv Contents

Comments 310 2. Diligence and Abandonment 313 Griffith v. Kanamaru 314 Fujikawa v. Wattanasin 318 Comments 325 Comparative Perspective: First-to-File vs. First-to-Invent 327

CHAPTER 5 Nonobviousness 329 Introduction 329 A. The Historical Foundation of Section 103 and the Nonobviousness Requirement 331 Hotchkiss v. Greenwood 331 Comments 334 B. The Graham Test 336 Graham v. John Deere Co. 336 United States v. Adams 342 Comments 347 C. Application of the Graham Test 354 1. Determining Obviousness (or Not) 355 KSR International v. Teleflex, Inc. 355 Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc. 368 Comments 371 Procter & Gamble Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 380 Comments 385 Policy Perspective: Using Section 103 as a Policy Tool 389 Comparative Perspective: Section 103’s European Counterpart— ‘‘Inventive Step’’ 391 2. Constructing the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art 392 Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd v. Apotex, Inc. 392 Comments 394 Tom Hartsfield, Has “Big Science” Pushed Aside the Little Guy? 400 3. Available Prior Art and the Analogous Art Doctrine 400 In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. 401 In re Klein 403 Comments 411 D. Secondary Considerations 413 Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc. 414 Comments 422

CHAPTER 6 Statutory Bars 425 Introduction 425 A. On-Sale Bar 427 Contents xv

1. Developmental Stage of the Claimed Invention 427 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics 427 Space Systems/Loral, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 432 Comments 435 2. What Constitutes an Offer for Sale? 437 Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC 437 Comments 442 B. Public-Use Bar 445 Egbert v. Lippmann 446 Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp. 448 Comments 452 C. Third-Party Activity 457 Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. 457 Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. 460 Comments 464 Comparative Perspective: Prejudicial Disclosures Under the European Patent Convention 469 D. Experimental Use 472 City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co. 472 Electromotive Division of General Motors Corp. v. Transportation Systems Division of General Electric Co. 476 Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Manufacturing Co. 484 Comments 486

CHAPTER 7 Enforcing Patent Rights 491 Introduction 491 Comparative Perspective: Enforcing Patents in Europe 498 A. Claim Interpretation 500 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (Markman II) 500 Comments 510 B. Infringement 517 1. Literal Infringement 517 Larami Corporation v. Amron 517 Comments 520 2. The Doctrine of Equivalents 523 Comparative Perspective: Non-Literal Infringement in Europe 525 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co. 526 Comments 530 Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. 531 Comments 540 3. Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents 547 a. Prosecution History Estoppel 547 FestoCorp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (Festo VIII) 548 xvi Contents

Comments 556 Policy Perspective: Festo and the Devolution of Responsibility 562 b. Disclosure-Dedication Rule 562 Johnson & Johnston Assocs., Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. 563 Comments 569 c. All-Limitations Rule and Specific Exclusion 571 Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 571 Comments 578 d. Prior Art 582 Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates 583 Comments 588 Comparative Perspective: Claim Interpretation and Non-Literal Infringement in the 589 Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. 589 Comments 602 4. Indirect Infringement 604 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. 604 Comments 612 Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, S.A. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. 617 Comments 620 5. Infringement of Means-Plus-Function Claims 622 Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp. 630 Comments 636 C. Defining the Geographic Scope of the Patent Right 638 1. The Parameters of Section 271(a): Defining ‘‘Within the United States’’ 638 NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. 638 Comments 647 2. The Parameters of Section 271(f): Export Activity 649 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 650 Comments 659 3. The Parameters of Section 271(g): Import Activity 663 Eli Lilly & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. 663 Comment 669

CHAPTER 8 Defenses to 671 Introduction 671 A. The Rights and Limitations on the Use of Contract in Exploiting Patent Rights 671 1. The Scope of Patent Exhaustion and the Repair-Reconstruction Doctrine 673 Contents xvii

Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission 676 Comments 685 2. Contractual Limitations and the Misuse Doctrine 688 a. Package and Tying Arrangements 689 Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. 689 U.S. Philips Corp. v. International Trade Commission 691 Comments 700 b. Field-of-Use and Other Licensing Restrictions 706 Mallinckrodt v. Medipart 706 Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. 712 Comments 728 Bowman v. Monsanto Company 734 Comments 739 c. Contractual Provisions Relating to Royalty Payments 741 Brulotte v. Thys Co. 741 Comments 749 Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc. 745 Comment 749 3. Contractual and Jurisdictional Restrictions Relating to Challenging Patent Validity 750 a. Licensee’s Ability to Challenge Patent Validity 751 Lear, Inc. v. Adkins 751 Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. 757 Comments 762 b. Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction 766 Sandisk Corp. v. ST Microelectronics, Inc. 766 Comments 776 B. Antitrust 781 1. Patents and Market Power 782 Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. 782 Comments 787 2. Walker Process and ‘‘Sham’’ Litigation 790 Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc. 790 Comments 799 3. Settlements 802 Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. 802 Comments 813 4. Refusal to Deal 816 In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation 817 Comments 821 C. and the Duty of Candor 823 Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. 824 Comments 831 D. Experimental Use 834 1. Statutory Experimental Use Under Section 271(e)(1) 835 xviii Contents

Merck v. Integra Lifesciences I 835 Comments 841 2. Experimental Use 842 Madey v. Duke 842 Comments 847 E. Inventorship 848 Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 848 Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. 854 Comments 860 F. Preemption 862 1. The Framework of Preemption Analysis 863 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. District of Columbia 863 2. Preemption of State Law 869 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron 869 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 879 Comments 887

CHAPTER 9 Remedies 889 Introduction 889 A. Money Damages 889 1. Lost Profits 890 Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc. 890 Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co. 899 Comments 909 2. Reasonable Royalty 913 Trio Process Corp. v. Goldstein’s Sons, Inc. 913 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. 919 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation 931 Comments 941 B. Equitable Relief 943 1. Preliminary Injunctions 943 Amazon.com, Inc. v. barnesandnoble.com, Inc. 943 Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc. 949 Comments 959 2. Permanent Injunctions 960 Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C. 960 Edwards Lifesciences v. Corevalve, Inc. 964 Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. 966 Comments 976 Policy Perspective: Rules, Liability Rules, and Patent Litigation 981 C. Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages 981 Knorr-Bresmse Systeme v. Dana Corp. 982 Contents xix

In re Seagate Technology, LLC 988 Comments 991 D. Marking and Constructive Notice 993 Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc. 993 Comments 996

Selected Patent Statutes 000 Table of Cases 000 Index 000