DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook Third Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook Third Edition Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook Third Edition Editors-in-Chief Barry L. Grossman Foley & Lardner Milwaukee, WI Gary M. Hoffman Dickstein Shapiro LLP Washington, DC Chapter 28: Patent Defenses Tom Filarksi and Heather N. Shafer Section of Intellectual Property Law A American Bar Association Bloomberg BNA, Arlington, VA Copyright © 2010 American Bar Association Chicago, IL Second Printing, August 2014 Reprinted by Permission Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Patent litigation strategies handbook / editors-in-chief, Barry L. Grossman, Gary M. Hoffman. -- 3rd ed. p. cm. “Section of Intellectual Property Law, American Bar Association.” Includes index. ISBN 978-1-57018-886-2 1. Patent suits--United States. 2. Patent laws and legislation--United States. I. Grossman, Barry L. II. Hoffman, Gary M. III. American Bar Association. Section of Intellectual Property Law. KF3155.P37 2010 346.7304'86--dc22 2010002289 The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and editors and should not be construed to be those of the American Bar Association or the Section of Intellectual Property Law. Nothing contained herein is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. These materials and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. Published by Bloomberg BNA 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202 bna.com/bnabooks ISBN 978-1-57018-886-2 Printed in the United States of America CHAPTER 28 PATENT DEFENSES* I. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1224 II. Noninfringement ..................................................................................... 1225 A. Infringement .................................................................................... 1225 1. Section 271(e): Limited Safe Harbor ......................................... 1229 a. “Reasonably Related” .......................................................... 1230 b. “Patented Invention” ............................................................ 1231 2. Section 271(f): Acts Within the United States ........................... 1232 3. Section 271(g): Defense Not Available in Section 1337 (ITC) Actions ....................................................................................... 1235 4. Section 271(b): Inducement of Infringement ............................. 1235 B. Limits on Infringement .................................................................... 1236 1. Claim Interpretation and Correction of Errors ........................... 1236 2. Prosecution History Estoppel ..................................................... 1239 3. Material Disclosed but Not Claimed .......................................... 1246 C. Section 272 ...................................................................................... 1248 D. Section 273: First-Inventor Defense to Business Method Patent .... 1249 E. Advice-of-Counsel Defense to Willful Infringement ...................... 1250 III. Invalidity ................................................................................................. 1251 A. Invalidity Based on the Prior Art ..................................................... 1252 1. Anticipation ................................................................................ 1252 2. Inherent Anticipation ................................................................. 1255 3. Obviousness ............................................................................... 1256 B. Reliance on Art Already Cited by the PTO...................................... 1261 C. Invalidity Based on Loss of Right ................................................... 1263 D. Invalidity Based on Inadequacies in the Specification or Claims .... 1268 1. The Enablement Requirement .................................................... 1268 2. The Written-Description Requirement ....................................... 1269 3. The Best Mode Requirement ..................................................... 1274 4. The Requirements of Claim Definiteness .................................. 1275 5. The Subject Matter That the Applicant Regards as His Invention .............................................................................. 1279 E. Invalidity Based on Nonstatutory Double Patenting ....................... 1280 F. The Section 282 Notice ................................................................... 1281 G. Pleading Invalidity ........................................................................... 1281 IV. Inequitable Conduct ................................................................................ 1282 *Tom Filarski, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, P.C., Heather N. Schafer, Creative Ventures Law Center, P.C., Chicago, Illinois. We thank Kourtney N. Baltzer, Harvard Law School, Class of 2013, for her contribu- tion to this work. 1223 1224 PATENT LITIGATION STRATEGIES HANDBOOK CH. 28. A. Materiality ........................................................................................ 1282 B. Intent ................................................................................................ 1283 C. Pleading Inequitable Conduct .......................................................... 1286 V. Antitrust .................................................................................................. 1287 A. Walker Process Claim ...................................................................... 1288 B. Sham Litigation ............................................................................... 1291 C. Tying Arrangements ......................................................................... 1291 VI. Patent Misuse .......................................................................................... 1294 A. Patent Misuse and the First Sale Doctrine ....................................... 1295 B. Patent Misuse and Contributory Infringement ................................ 1297 C. Patent Misuse and License Agreements .......................................... 1297 D. Bad Faith by Patentee ...................................................................... 1300 VII. Laches and Equitable Estoppel ............................................................... 1301 A. Laches .............................................................................................. 1301 B. Estoppel ........................................................................................... 1302 C. Prosecution Laches .......................................................................... 1302 VIII. Ownership and Licenses ......................................................................... 1305 IX. Contractual Estoppel Defense to Enforcement of a Patent..................... 1313 X. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting ...................................................... 1315 XI. Sovereign Immunity Defense to Enforcement of a Patent ..................... 1316 XII. No “Practicing Prior Art” and “Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents” Defenses ............................................................................ 1320 A. Practicing Prior Art .......................................................................... 1320 B. Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents ..................................................... 1320 XIII. Section 1498(a): Government Contractor Defense ................................ 1321 XIV. Exception for Experimental Use............................................................. 1322 XV. Declaratory Judgment ............................................................................. 1323 XVI. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 1324 I. INTRODUCTION Typical defenses found in a patent case are noninfringement, invalidity, unenforceability, fraud, laches, estoppel, and violations of the antitrust laws. Defending against a charge of infringement involves rebutting evidence, because the burden of proof to establish liability rests on the patent holder. In contrast, raising a defense of invalidity, unenforceability, fraud, laches, or estoppel or making an antitrust claim places the burden of proof on the accused infringer. According to the patent statute, a defendant can plead the following defenses in any action involving the infringement or validity of a patent: (1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforce- ability, (2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition of patentability, (3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of Sections 112 or 251 of this title, (4) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.1 135 U.S.C. §282. CH. 28.II.A. PATENT DEFENSES 1225 Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to affirma- tively set forth laches, estoppel, fraud, license, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense in the pleading.2 A defendant can claim that a patent is invalid by demonstrating it does not meet the conditions for patentability as specified under Part II of the patent statute. This part of the patent statute contains Sections 100 through 212, but only two of these specify conditions for patentability. Section 102 sets forth the conditions of novelty and loss of right, and 103 sets out the condition of nonobviousness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Circuit Year in Review
    ss TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2 GIBSON DUNN’S FEDERAL CIRCUIT CLERKS ..................................................................... 3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 6 INDEX BY ISSUE ....................................................................................................................... 28 CASE SUMMARIES ................................................................................................................... 44 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF ALL CASES ............................................................................. 133 INTRODUCTION The Federal Circuit’s 2019‒2020 term saw a number of important developments in patent law. The Court issued 130 published opinions. This term included significant panel decisions in patent law jurisprudence with regard to the constitutionality of the PTAB and its jurisdiction and procedures (Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., 948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020)), subject matter eligibility (American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Discovery of Patent Prosecution Communications by Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Update On Discovery Of Patent Prosecution Communications By Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee Law360, New York (June 20, 2017, 5:19 PM EDT) -- In general, communications between an attorney and his client relating to the filing and prosecution of a patent application are privileged. Last year, the Federal Circuit found that such communications between a patent agent and his client are also privileged.[1] But under the joint attorney-client privilege or the common interest doctrine, communications between attorneys and two or more clients may not be privileged in a later dispute between these clients. This article discusses the challenges that courts and companies continue to face in determining whether a party can access these patent prosecution communications in disputes: (1) between two joint owners; (2) between an employer-owner and an employee- inventor; and (3) with respect to a patent agent, in other Circuits and state courts. Jeffrey Thomas Do Joint Owners Share a Joint Attorney-Client Privilege During Patent Prosecution? When a dispute arises between two joint owners, one owner may seek to access the other owner’s communications with the patent attorney relating to the patent prosecution process. In that case, a court would look at a few factors to decide. One factor would be whether the patent prosecution process was handled by only one attorney (e.g., an in-house attorney), or by two attorneys separately representing the two owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen Mcjohn
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 9 Article 1 Issue 4 January Spring 2011 Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn Recommended Citation Stephen McJohn, Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases, 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2011). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol9/iss4/1 This Perspective is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn January 2011 VOL. 9, NO. 4 © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 9, Number 4 (January 2011) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases By Stephen McJohn* ¶1 The following are notable intellectual property decisions for patent and trademark in 2010 in the United States. Notable copyright and trade secret cases will be examined in a subsequent article. Viewed across doctrinal lines, some interesting threads emerge involving the scope of protection, the amount of secondary liability, and ownership of the intellectual property rights. ¶2 The scope of protection was at issue in both areas. Bilski v. Kappos marked a shift from using technical tests for patent subject matter to relying on the basic exclusions against patents on laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.1 Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World
    Washington University Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1 2003 Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World Jonathan G. Musch Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Evidence Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan G. Musch, Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 175 (2003). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol81/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE PATENT PROSECUTION PROCESS IN THE POST- SPALDING WORLD I. INTRODUCTION One of the oldest traditions of the Anglo-American judicial system is the concept of attorney-client privilege.1 This privilege and its much younger sibling, the work-product doctrine,2 limit the discoverability of private communications between attorney and client.3 Private communications4 between a patent attorney and a client, however, have not always enjoyed this protection.5 Due to a misconception of the role of a patent attorney within the patent prosecution process, courts denied attorney-client privilege first to all patent prosecution documents, and later to documents containing technical information. This effectively denied the privilege to most documents generated during a prosecution.6 More recently, courts afforded certain documents containing technical information protection, but under a patchwork of different standards.7 Frequently, a disagreement existed between different district courts within a circuit,8 as well as among different circuits.9 The exponential technology 1.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SHURE INCORPORATED and ) SHURE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-1343-RGA-CJB ) CLEARONE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In this action filed by Plaintiffs Shure, Inc. and Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Shure”) against Defendant ClearOne, Inc. (“Defendant” or “ClearOne”), presently before the Court is the matter of claim construction. The Court recommends that the District Court adopt the construction set forth below. I. BACKGROUND Shure and ClearOne are competitors in the installed audio-conferencing market. (D.I. 64 at ¶¶ 14-15; see also D.I. 22 at 1; D.I. 40 at 1) On July 18, 2019, Shure filed the instant action against ClearOne in this Court. (D.I. 1)1 On November 19, 2019, Shure filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), in which it first asserted the patent at issue in this Report and Recommendation, United States Design Patent No. D865,723 (the “'723 patent”). (D.I. 64) The '723 patent is entitled “Array Microphone Assembly” and it issued on November 5, 2019. (D.I. 239, ex. 1 (hereinafter, “'723 patent”)) It is a continuation of a parent application filed on April 30, 2015, which matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,565,493 (the “'493 patent”). (Id. 1 The parties have also been involved in litigation against each other in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois since April 2017. (See D.I. 155 at 2-3) at 1-2; id., ex. 4 at 1 (hereinafter, “'493 patent”))2 Further details concerning the '723 patent will be addressed below in Section III.
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights the JPO Would Like to Update Its Reply to the Question 39 of the Questionnaire on Ex
    Exceptions and limitations to patent rights The JPO would like to update its reply to the question 39 of the questionnaire on exceptions and limitations to patent rights as follows. （The updated reply to the question 39 ） Article 79bis (1) of the Japanese Patent Act stipulates that where a person who has had the patent right, the exclusive license on the patent right, or the non-exclusive license on the patent right or the exclusive license existing at the time of the registration of assignment of the patent right based on the request under Article 74 (1) and has been working the invention in Japan in the course of one’s business, or has been making preparations for one’s business, prior to such registration of assignment of the patent right without knowing that the patent falls under the requirements of Article 123 (1) (ii) (limited to cases in which the patent has been granted in violation of Article 38) or the requirements of Article 123 (1) (vi), such person shall have a non-exclusive license on the patent right limited to the extent of the patent which is being worked or for which preparations for working are made and to the purpose of such working or preparations. Article 80(1) of the Japanese Patent Act stipulates that a person falling under any of the following items, who is doing a business working an invention in Japan or preparing such business, before the registration of a request for a trial for patent invalidation, without knowledge that the patent falls under any of the paragraphs of Article 123(1), shall have a non-exclusive
    [Show full text]
  • Business Method Patents and Patent Floods
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 8 Symposium on Intellectual Property, Digital Technology & Electronic Commerce January 2002 Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Meurer, Business Method Patents and Patent Floods, 8 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 309 (2002), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol8/iss1/12 This Patents and Bioinformatics - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer* “[O]ne of the great inventions of our times, the diaper service [is not patentable].”1 Giles S. Rich “We take this opportunity to lay this ill-conceived exception to rest.”2 Giles S. Rich I. INTRODUCTION The decline of the business method exception to patentability will increase the frequency of patent floods. By patent flood, I mean a dramatic jump in the number of patents filed covering a specific class of inventions, as we now observe in e-commerce.3 Floods are likely to become more frequent as future entrepreneurs respond to the appearance of a new market with a spate of business method patent applications claiming new methods tailored to the new market. A flood of related patents in a new market creates special problems for competition in addition to the usual problems that arise * Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Article of Manufacture” Today
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2018 THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” TODAY Sarah Burstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 782 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 785 A. Design Patentable Subject Matter ............................................ 785 B. Design Patent Claiming & Infringement ................................. 786 C. Remedies for Design Patent Infringement ............................... 788 III. WHAT IS THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” IN § 289?.............. 789 A. The Apple/Nordock Rule .......................................................... 791 B. The Supreme Court Weighs In ................................................. 791 IV. WHY COURTS SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH .................................................................................... 793 A. The Test .................................................................................... 794 1. The Underlying Premise ........................................................ 795 2. The Factors ............................................................................ 797 B. The Nature of the Inquiry ......................................................... 802 1. A Case-by-Case Inquiry? ...................................................... 802 2. Is it a Question of Fact or Law? ............................................ 807 C. The Burden of Proof................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION TUITIONFUND, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:11-00069 ) Judge Sharp SUNTRUST BANKS, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Reexamination (Docket No. 207) filed by Defendants SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, Vesdia Corporation, and Cartera Commerce, Inc. (collectively the “Vesdia Defendants”), to which Plaintiff Tuitionfund LLC has responded in opposition (Docket No. 211). The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on September 24, 2012, after which the Vesdia Defendants filed a Sealed Supplement Brief in further support of their request for a stay. For the following reasons, the Motion to Stay will be denied. In a related case, TuitionFund LLC v. First Horizon Nat’l Corp. et al., No. 3:11-0852 (“First Horizon”), the Court was presented with a similar request for a stay pending reexamination of the patents in suit. In denying the request, the Court wrote: In determining whether to exercise its discretion to impose a stay pending the USPTO’s reexamination, Courts primarily consider three factors: “(1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.” Protective Indus., Inc. v. Ratermann Mfg., Inc., No. 3:10-1033, 2010 WL 5391525 at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 22, 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lincoln Electric v. Miller Electric Mfg.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
    Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 37 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS LOGANTREE LP, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 17-1217-EFM-KGS GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and GARMIN USA, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively “Garmin”) move this Court for a stay pending inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent in suit. In addition, Garmin moves the Court for an intra-district transfer for trial to Kanas City, Kansas. As explained below, the Court grants Garmin’s motion to stay the case until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issues its decisions regarding Garmin’s IPRs. Furthermore, because the PTAB’s decision could simplify the issues in the case such that Plaintiff LoganTree LP no longer has a claim for infringement, the Court denies Garmin’s motion for intra-district transfer for trial without prejudice. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff LoganTree LP filed this patent infringement suit on August 23, 2017, alleging that Garmin’s accelerometer-based activity trackers infringe its U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (the Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 37 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 8 ‘576 Patent). In February 2018, Garmin filed two petitions for IPR with the PTAB covering 52 of the 185 claims of the ‘576 Patent. LoganTree did not file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and on August 30, 2018, the PTAB instituted the IPRs on all grounds. The PTAB is expected to complete the proceedings and issue its final decisions by August 30, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventions and Patents
    MODULE 03 Inventions and Patents MODULE 03. Inventions and Patents OUTLINE LEARNING POINT 1: Basics of invention and patent 1. One way of adding value to a product 2. Reasons for patenting an invention LEARNING POINT 2: Patent application 1. Evaluating the patentability of an invention 2. Deciding whether to patent an invention 3. Preparing a patent application (1) Detailed description of the invention (2) Claims (3) Who prepares (4) After filing a patent application LEARNING POINT 3: Patent infringement 1. Definition of patent infringement 2. If you come across your competitor’s patent LEARNING POINT 4: Patent management system 1. Basic elements of a patent management system 2. Patent portfolio INTRODUCTION The term "intellectual property (IP)" is defined as the property resulting from creations of the human mind, the intellect. In this regard, it is fair that the person making efforts for an intellectual creation has some benefit as a result of this endeavor. Probably, the most important among intellectual properties is “patent.” A patent is an exclusive right granted by a government for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. The details on the way of acquiring patents will be provided for protecting precious intellectual properties. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. You understand how to decide whether your new technology or invention should be protected by one or more patents and, if so, how to do so. 2. You know how the grant of a patent over an invention or technology helps you to prevent or have an upper hand in legal disputes that may arise later on.
    [Show full text]