DOCSLIB.ORG

Cases and Materials on Patent Law Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner, 1St Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cases and Materials on Patent Law Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner, 1St Edition Cases and Materials on Patent Law (Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner) Reading notes compiled by David J. Stein, Esq. Cases and Materials on Patent Law Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner, 1st Edition Chapter One: Introduction §1.1 Casebook Overview • Overview: Patent system is basically a bargain: disclosure of technology to public in exchange for the right to exclude others from using it – useful because it encourages technological development in a distinctly American way; spread of this American system throughout the world is a testament to its success – Hank Morgan, English administrator: “the very first official thing I did… was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn’t travel any way but sideways or backwards” – patent policies demonstrate societal goals and priorities, and some basic Constitutional principles minimally changed over 200+ years • Organization: Study focuses on current patent statute, enacted in 1952 (35 USC § 101 et seq) – since patent law is truly an international field, much of this text is comparative, and some is judgmental of differences between foreign and U.S. patent systems – also, historical development of patent law doctrines will be covered §1.2 Foundations of the United States patent system • U.S. Constitution: Article I, §8: Congress has the 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” – balances the rights of inventors over their inventions against the right of the public for freedom from unhelpful monopolies: patents must be for useful arts for limited duration, and Congress can’t “remove knowledge from the public domain, or restrict free access to materials already available” (Graham v. John Deere (1966)) – it’s incorrect to refer to any but the most general patent principles as “constitutional,” since Constitution only granted Congress the power to establish a patent system but didn’t specify how; rather, almost all patent principles are “statutory,” but not “Constitutional” – some economists have suggested that in certain fields of technology, patents actually hinder progress; question is still open as to whether patents in these areas are actually “unconstitutional” • Patent Act of 1790: First patent act – 14-year patent term, only for inventions that were “sufficiently useful and important” to warrant grant of monopoly – required inventor to submit a detailed specification and maybe a model to the “Commissioners for the promotion of Useful Arts” (Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and Attorney General; two of the three must authorize patent) – early system was championed by Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State • Patent Act of 1793: This act introduced defenses to infringement: device was not invented by patentee, or device was described in a public work before patentee invented it –principles established by this patent act are still in use today Page 1 of 138 Cases and Materials on Patent Law (Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner) Reading notes compiled by David J. Stein, Esq. • Patent Act of 1842: Congress created design patent (35 USC §171) – protects an aesthetically pleasing design of an article of manufacture that is not solely dictated by functionality • Novelty: is an important concept of patent law – embodied in 35 USC §102 – patent for non-novel invention not only fails to disclose new information, but actually takes that knowledge out of the public domain – thus, selling an unpatented invention acts as a complete bar to future patentability (Pennock v. Dialogue: patentee applied for patent for improvement to rubber hose after making selling over 13,000 feet of it – patent office refused patent, and Court affirmed) – the invention must be literally novel (invention is unpatentable “if its contours are so traced by the existing technology in the field that the ‘improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor’” (inner quote from Hotchkiss v. Greenwood)) and also non-obvious (35 USC §103: unpatentable if “obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art” – novelty and obviousness requirements codify the concept that patent system shouldn’t unfairly intrude on public domain) • Concealment: If inventor can keep his invention secret, he can bypass the patent system and use the device exclusively for as long as he can keep it secret – the patent system encourages disclosure of the invention for the public good by offering a 20-year monopoly (35 USC §154), as long as he can show that his invention is novel, nonobvious, and useful, and describe the “best mode” of performing the invention (35 USC §112) §1.3 Origins of the Patent System • First patent systems: No one nation is solely responsible for having created patent system – the origins of the U.S patent system arose in other countries, particularly England and Venice – earliest patent roots began with Germany’s “water mine” system in 1300: use of land in the Alps for mining ore was granted exclusively to the person who first “invented” the ore site – eventually became enacted in “Constitutiones Juris Metallici” by King Wenceslaus II – as ore close to the surface became exhausted, miners had to develop water-drainage systems, and these developers were granted exclusive use of these galleries • Venetian patent system: 1323: Johannes Teuthonicus promised to build sufficient grain mills to serve all of Venice; government promised to pay him if he built his mills – this is the first known privilege, although it was granted not for innovation, but for the utility of the mill, so it’s not quite a patent – the minority view of the antecedents of the Venetian patent system: First known patent granted in 1409 by Germany to Henricus von Heslingen, for exclusive privilege to mine ore – this type of grant was later generalized as German statute, which Venetians later copied – Venetians then expanded concept into a general patent code in 1474, and then granted 120 patents based on this code – the majority view of the antecedents of the Venetian patent system: arose from Mediterranean guild system, which created a system for controlling its arts and crafts – inventors of improvements to the art had to get a license from the guild to infringe inventions on which improvement was based – this system was later codified into general patent system by Venetian Act of 1474, based on successful patent grant in Florence in 1421 – this system of protection was more arbitrary than modern patent systems – also, its purpose was slightly different than ours: patents granted not for new inventions, but Page 2 of 138 Cases and Materials on Patent Law (Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner) Reading notes compiled by David J. Stein, Esq. for exclusive use of existing inventions from foreign states, in order to facilitate import of technology into Venice – e.g.: John the German brought printing techniques to Venice in exchange for an exclusive right to print in Venice • French patent system: Descendant of Venetian system – evolved as a registration system: no examination of application on its merits occurs before patent is granted – instead, all such issues are resolved by judiciary in enforcement cases – however, examination did occasionally occur via a crude system of referrals to the Royal Academy of Science, which certified inventions it found useful – also, French used a first-to-file system of priority • Early English system: English crown used patent grants to grant exclusive licenses in certain areas (e.g., grant of monopoly to create playing cards) – however, judiciary and Parliament took this out of the Queen’s control with the Statute of Monopolies: monopolies were limited to 14 years, and only for domestically unknown inventions – by limiting monopolies in such a way, the statute affirmatively created a patent system and promoted the import of foreign technologies – although British system would evolve separately from American system, England later signed into the European Patent Convention (EPC), which is modeled closely on the American patent system • American colonial patents: First American patent granted in Massachusetts in 1641 to Samuel Winslow for manufacture of salt – many colonies offered rewards (not necessarily monopolies) for inventions – first American patent statute: Connecticut statute of 1672, forbidding monopolies except limited ones granted in exchange for new inventions – later South Carolina statute fixed term at 14 years – Maryland required all residents who built or used a spinning machine to pay Robert Lemmon a fixed sum, and later did the same for Oliver Evans’s grain elevator (these aren’t patents, more like a license system) – Evans later federally patented the elevator, and also obtained the first patent term extension by special act of Congress – Supreme Court later struck down a constitutional challenge to this congressional act (Evans v. Jordan), and then heard the first major patent case on this same invention (Evans v. Eaton) – finally, Pennsylvania allowed British patent holders to register their inventions here and then enforce them, and created a patent publication for this purpose • Constitution and early patent laws: During constitutional conventions, James Madison and Charles Pickney proposed congressional power to encourage innovation by either granting monopolies or subsidizing inventors (Pickney is credited with the proposal, and he served on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ests Under Canadian Patent Law: Useful Or Not?
    Canadian Journal of Law and Technology Volume 5 Number 2 Article 2 4-1-2006 ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not? Natalie C. Bellefeuille Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cjlt Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Natalie C. Bellefeuille, "ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not?" (2006) 5:2 CJLT. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not? Natalie C. Bellefeuille† Introduction one of the two cDNA strands: a 5’ EST is obtained when the beginning portion of a cDNA is sequenced, whereas a 3’ EST is obtained when the ending portion of a cDNA The Debate is sequenced. 9 ESTs thus represent short DNA sequences, the majority of which encode part of a gene, but rarely a he patentability of human genetic material has full-length gene. As will be discussed in greater detail T given rise to considerable debate around the below, they are generally only useful to researchers as 1 world. As Kevles notes, ‘‘[o]ne of the most controversial tools to identify the full-length gene, and rarely provide issues in biotechnology in the Unites States and Europe information about the function or location of the gene.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Professor Norman V. Siebrasse
    In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Case No. UNCT/14/2) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant v. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR NORMAN V. SIEBRASSE Professor of Law, University of New Brunswick TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Background and Qualifications........................................................................................... 3 B. Overview of Patent Law in Canada .................................................................................... 3 (i) Purpose of Patent Rights ................................................................................................. 3 (ii) Patentability Requirements ......................................................................................... 4 (iii) Claims and Disclosure ................................................................................................ 4 II. Law of Utility In Canada ........................................................................................................ 6 A. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 6 B. Utility At Date of Filing/Examination of Zyprexa and Strattera Patents............................ 7 (i) Utility Standard ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Designwrites 2014 April Welcome to the Third Edition of Designwrites
    & DesignWrites 2014 April Welcome to the third edition of DesignWrites At Bird & Bird we’re passionate about design. DesignWrites will unravel and explore the seemingly complex world of design protection, offering practical advice by looking at recent design cases, hearing from industry experts and sharing stories from the wider design community. If you would like advice on how best to protect your designs or take action to stop copycats, please contact Ewan Grist via [email protected] for a complimentary consultation. In this edition... Armchair design found to have individual character ..........3 Q&A with designer Julia Landsiedl ....................................18 The new German Design Act: more than just a new name? ...4 Registered Community design for corkscrew invalid due to earlier design ............................................20 For the love of fashion: protecting the beauty of fashion through Community design rights .....................................6 No design right protection for heart-shaped tomatoes .......21 Benelux: online design applications now possible ..............9 Italy special report: protecting your rights at Il Salone del Mobile of Milan ........................................ 22 Court of Appeal overturns first instance decision in Trunki design case ...................................................... 10 Design Museum: Designs of the Year 2014 ........................ 24 Upcoming industry events and awards ............................ 26 Registered UK design for a beer glass infringed .................12
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Professor Robert P. Merges the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
    In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Case No. UNCT/14/2) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant v. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent Expert Report of Professor Robert P. Merges The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Table of Contents I. Background and Qualifications ................................................................................................. 3 II. Summary of Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 3 III. Overview of U.S. Patent Law .................................................................................................. 5 A. U.S. Patentability Requirements .......................................................................................... 5 B. Utility: The Standard of Operability ................................................................................... 8 C. Purpose of U.S. Utility Doctrine ......................................................................................... 12 IV. Comparing the Canadian “Promise Doctrine” to U.S. Law on Utility .................. 15 A. The Utility of the Strattera and Zyprexa Patents ........................................................ 15 B. The Cost of the Promise Doctrine ..................................................................................... 20 V. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts
    SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LAW Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 SpringerBriefs in Law SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typical topics might include: • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques • A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a contextual literature review • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic • A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions SpringerBriefs in Law showcase emerging theory, empirical research, and practical application in Law from a global author community. SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10164 Dana Beldiman • Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser Academic Director and Founder, Center Researcher, Center for Transnational for Transnational Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Bucerius Law School Bucerius Law School Hamburg Hamburg Germany Germany and UC Hastings College of the Law San Francisco USA ISSN 2192-855X ISSN 2192-8568 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Law ISBN 978-3-319-54059-7 ISBN 978-3-319-54060-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017934314 © The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Fox on the Canadian Law of Patents, 5Th Edition
    Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, 5th Edition August 1, 2013 By Donald H. MacOdrum Bereskin & Parr is pleased to announce the publication of Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, 5th Ed., authored by Donald H. MacOdrum, one of Canada’s most respected and experienced intellectual property practitioners. Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, published by Carswell, provides a complete overview of Canadian patent law, including authoritative commentary, indispensable guidance and practical insight. Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents is the preeminent reference work for patent lawyers and agents in Canada. This book includes insightful commentary on a wide range of topics, including: invention; obviousness; novelty; utility; patent specification; construction and application; international patent protection including the Patent Cooperation Treaty; the patent grant and validity of patents; re-issue, disclaimer, correction, dedication and re-examination; infringement and remedies for infringement. Donald MacOdrum is a partner in Bereskin & Parr LLP’s Litigation practice group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, which he has practiced for over 40 years. He is recognized as one of the leading patent and patent litigation lawyers in Canada and was the only Canadian ranked in the Intellectual Property category in The BTI Client Service All-Star Team for Law Firms 2013. Click here for more information. Content shared on Bereskin & Parr’s website is for information purposes only. It should not be taken as legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please contact a Bereskin & Parr LLP professional. We will be pleased to help you. Bereskin & Parr LLP | bereskinparr.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presumption of Validity in Canadian Patent Law
    NOTES The Presumption of Validity in Canadian Patent Law The role of the presumption in our legal system can best be understood in the light of the fact-finding process, for it permits a party to prove to the court facts crucial to his case merely by establishing the existence of other facts, from which the court will deduce the existence of the primary facts which he alleges. Article 1349 of the Code Napolgon provides that: Les pr6somptions sont des consequences que la loi on le magistrat tire d'un fait connu h un fait inconnu. The implications of this definition' are important, for they indicate that, in strict legal terms, it is not proper to speak of presumptions with respect to a question of law. On the contrary, the term "presumption" is by definition confined to the fact-finding process. Although it follows from this line of reasoning that section 48 of the Patent Act 2 does not create a presumption in favour of a patentee since the issue as to the validity of a patent is ultimately a question of law and one for the courts to decide, there is no doubt that the section, by providing that the patent is "prima facie valid", places a burden upon a litigant challenging the right of the patentee. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the term "presumption" will be used throughout this note in its conventional sense as opposed to its narrow legal meaning. That is to say, the term will indicate that, when it applies, a presumption has the effect of placing upon one party an onus which he would otherwise not have to bear, and, conversely, alleviating the burden of the person opposing him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law
    Canadian Journal of Law and Technology Volume 14 Number 2 Article 2 6-1-2016 The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law Tesh W. Dagne Gosia Piasecka Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cjlt Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tesh W. Dagne and Gosia Piasecka, "The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law" (2016) 14:2 CJLT. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law Tesh W. Dagne and Gosia Piasecka* Abstract 3D printing technology is part of a new economic movement, termed the sharing economy, where consumers rely less on large corporations for supplying them with products. The technology allows consumers to bypass the traditional manufacturing process. Instead, consumers increasingly share and sell products to each other on online sharing platforms. Consumers can download digital copies of products and print them in the convenience of their homes. In addition, they can repair and modify these products to suit their needs. Canadian patent law permits the repair of a patent-protected item but prohibits its reconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interdisciplinary Approach Towards Defining the Individual Character of Industrial Design “
    EXPOSE INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION AT THE COURSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW „ AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TOWARDS DEFINING THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN “ Author: SAŠA KRAJNC, University Graduate in Laws MENTOR: Univ. Prof. Dr. WALTER DILLENZ Ptuj, Slovenia, 16.3.2012 INDEX: 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter................................................................................. 2 2. Main Topics, Issues and Questions................................................................................. 2 3. Aims and Implications of the Dissertation..................................................................... 4 4. Boundaries, Problems and Challenges........................................................................... 5 5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 6. Time-line and Study Stages ............................................................................................. 7 7. Structural Outline ............................................................................................................ 8 8. Literature and Sources .................................................................................................... 9 1 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter Since the European Council regulation on Community Designs (EC 6/2002, dated 12.12.2001) came into force in 2002 it pretty much unified the legislative systematic of design as an intellectual property right across all
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations in the Field of Designs
    IIC (2018) 49:41–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4 ARTICLE Limitations in the Field of Designs Natalia Kapyrina Published online: 21 December 2017 Ó Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017 Abstract Considering the weight given to exceptions and limitations in current intellectual property research, this paper endeavours to explore sui generis design rights from the standpoint of limitations to their scope of protection. This paper focuses on the current EU framework with insights from its travaux pre´paratoires, comparing it to several other legislations and international instruments. A primary assessment shows that these limitations have a reduced interference with the scope of protection, and stem from a copyright or patent approach to the hybrid subject matter of designs. This paper further explores situations where the interaction between the scope of design protection and its limitations to design rights triggers conflicts. It examines in particular the recent autonomous interpretation by the ECJ of the limitation authorising reproduction for the purpose of citation. Keywords Design Á EU law Á Limitations Á Exceptions Á Scope of protection This research was partially undertaken during the author’s stay at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI), with a generous scholarship granted by the MPI. The author expresses gratitude to Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Annette Kur and Professor Dr. Christophe Geiger for enlightening discussions. This paper was completed within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement *
    PRIOR ART INVALIDITY DEFENSES TO E-PATENT INFRINGEMENT * Harold C. Wegner ** Detailed Table of Contents ..................................................................................2 I. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 4 II. E-COMMERCE PRIOR ART — THE STATUTORY GROUNDS ................................... 5 III. WEBSITE AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ............................................................ 7 IV. E-MAIL AS A "PRINTED PUBLICATION"............................................................... 14 V. USE AND KNOWLEDGE OF AN E-INVENTION ...................................................... 15 VI. THE DOMESTIC "ON SALE" BAR ......................................................................... 23 VII. DERIVATION ..................................................................................................... 27 VIII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 27 _____________________ * Paper prepared for SOFTIC 2001 Symposium, November 20-21, 2001, Tokyo Prince Hotel, Tokyo, Japan, Joint Direct Infringement, Indirect Infringement, Session C-1, 9:00 AM, November 21, 2001. ** Former Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program and Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. Foley & Lardner. contact: halwegner @ hotmail.com Wegner, Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement Detailed Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Ways to Creative Funding Workshop
    Ways to Creative Funding Workshop Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangar- Malaysia 10.01.2017 ADVANSE Capacity Building – Trainings for Trainers Different ways of funding 28.06.2019 Seite 2 We keep in mind… … 10% of what we read. … 20% of what we hear. … 30% of what we see. … 50% of what we see and hear. … 70% of what we say. … and 90% of what we do. 28.06.2019 Seite 3 World Café creativity CAROUSEL OF IDEAS ways IDEAS possibilities Utopia new thinking team work 28.06.2019 Seite 4 Services Facilities Teaching What for? Research Properties 28.06.2019 Seite 5 Guests Students Stuff Researchers Target Private persons group? Alumni Alumni Teachers Business/companies/industry 28.06.2019 Seite 6 Examples Leuphana University, Germany Graduate ceremony together with companies Mannheim University, Germany Renovation of the libary with donations (10 Mio €) Zeppelin University, Germany Crowdfunding of seating 28.06.2019 Seite 7 THREE GROUPS - THREE TABLES - THREE Rounds Round 1 • Creating ideas Round 2 • Rating the ideas • Work out ideas 1-3 Round 3 • Rating the ideas • Launch a campaign for idea 1 28.06.2019 Seite 8 What is the difference between fundraising and beggary? What has the Uni- versity to offer/to sell? Why do some people give and others don`t? A person who gave already is more likely to give again. What are the benefits forthosewhohavetopayfees? An alumni starts with the enrollement of the student. 28.06.2019 Seite 9 Presentation of the campaigns • What is your goal? • What is your target group? • What are your methods and instruments? • What are your ressources? • Who are your partners? • What is your time frame? How do you convince? 28.06.2019 Seite 10 Thank you very much for your cooperation.
    [Show full text]