1 / 15

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property. Boston College Law School February 29, 2008 Patent - Novelty. Requirements. (1) Patentable Subject Matter (2) Novelty (3) Utility (4) Nonobviousness (5) Enablement. Novelty. 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

dawn
Download Presentation

Intellectual Property

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 29, 2008 Patent - Novelty

  2. Requirements • (1) Patentable Subject Matter • (2) Novelty • (3) Utility • (4) Nonobviousness • (5) Enablement

  3. Novelty • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof … • (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application … • (e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed … before the invention … • (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter … • (g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it ….”

  4. Novelty - § 102 Invented Patent Filed (a) Novelty - known (US), used (US), patented, described One year (b) Statutory Bar - patented, described, in public use (US), on sale (US) (e) Previously Filed - described in a filed US patent application (g) Previously Invented - made in US by one who did not abandon or conceal

  5. Novelty • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof …

  6. Novelty • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application …

  7. Novelty • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • (e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed … before the invention … • (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter …

  8. Novelty • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • (g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it ….”

  9. On-Sale bar • Policies • Don’t remove inventions from public domain • Encourage timely disclosure of inventions • Avoid extension of patent term • Provide some breathing space to inventors to assess patentability, marketability, success, etc.

  10. Priority • 35 U.S.C. § 102. Novelty. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - • …. • (g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.”

  11. Priority Conception Reduction to Practice Conception Reduction to Practice Reasonable Diligence Reduction to Practice Conception

  12. Griffith v. Kanamaru Reasonable Diligence Griffith Reduction to Practice Jan. 11, 1984 Conception Jun. 30, 1981 Kanamaru Filed Nov. 17, 1982

  13. Priority • Questions • Why reward conception? • Why reward invention (as opposed to filing)? • Why a winner-take all system?

  14. GATT-TRIPS Changes • Modifications to U.S. Patent Law • Term: 20 years from application • Introduction of foreign pre-filing activity • Provisional patent applications

  15. Administrative • Next Class • Start Patent IV.B.5 – Nonobviousness • Through KSR v. Teleflex

More Related