1 / 74

PATENTS

PATENTS. PROF. JANICKE IP SURVEY COURSE 2012. THE USUAL QUESTIONS:. CAN I GET A PATENT ON ____? IF I’M EMPLOYED OR CONSULTING, WHO WILL OWN IT? HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?. THE USUAL QUESTIONS:. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? WHAT CAN I DO WITH IT IF I GET IT?. ELIGIBILITY.

kalona
Download Presentation

PATENTS

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. PATENTS PROF. JANICKE IP SURVEY COURSE 2012

  2. THE USUAL QUESTIONS: • CAN I GET A PATENT ON ____? • IF I’M EMPLOYED OR CONSULTING, WHO WILL OWN IT? • HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? IP Survey -- Patents

  3. THE USUAL QUESTIONS: • HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? • WHAT CAN I DO WITH IT IF I GET IT? IP Survey -- Patents

  4. ELIGIBILITY • JUST ABOUT ANYTHING BELIEVED TO BE “NEW” – BASICALLY NOT KNOWN BEFORE • COMPUTER SOFTWARE: NOW IN DOUBT • BUSINESS METHODS: NOW IN DOUBT IP Survey -- Patents

  5. CASES: • CHAKRABARTY • PROMETHEUS • BILSKI IP Survey -- Patents

  6. ACTUAL INVENTORS USUALLY “APPLY” • MERELY PAPERWORK – OWNERSHIP IS OFTEN IN AN ASSIGNEE • WHO ARE THE INVENTORS? • ROLE OF CLAIMS IN MODERN PATENT LAW • YOU DON’T PATENT A SINGLE THING ANY MORE IP Survey -- Patents

  7. INVENTORS • THOSE WHO THOUGHT OF SOMETHING COVERED BY THE CLAIM • NOT THOSE WHO LEARNED IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE IP Survey -- Patents

  8. INVENTORS • YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE UNTIL THE CLAIMS ARE DRAFTED • THOSE INVOLVED IN A MINISTERIAL OR MANAGERIAL WAY AREN’T IP Survey -- Patents

  9. INVENTORS • ARE ALWAYS THE INITIAL OWNERS OF THE PATENT RIGHT • USUALLY THEY ASSIGN TO A COMMON ENTITY, WHICH BANKROLLS THE APPLICATION IP Survey -- Patents

  10. AIA CHANGE • PURPORTED OR ACTUAL ASSIGNEE CAN FILE • STILL NEED AN INVENTOR STATEMENT • PROBABLY WILL SELDOM BE USED IP Survey -- Patents

  11. HOW THE CLAIMS SYSTEM WORKS • CLAIMS ARE AT THE BACK OF A PATENT • THEY ARE THE ONLY IMPORTANT PART, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES • THEY DEFINE THE SCOPE OF COVERAGE – A FAMILY OF THINGS IP Survey -- Patents

  12. PURPOSE OF A CLAIM: TO DEFINE COVERAGE AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE • ANYONE WHO LATER OPERATES WITHIN THE FAMILY OF A CLAIM IS AN “INFRINGER” • OTHERS AREN’T IP Survey -- Patents

  13. EXAMPLE OF CLAIMING: THE FIRST CAR • CLIENT SHOWS YOU A MACHINE SHE HAS DEVISED: • IT HAS: • CHASSIS • 4 WHEELS • 10-CYLINDER ENGINE • BRAKE ON EACH WHEEL • 3-SPEED TRANSMISSION IP Survey -- Patents

  14. HOW TO CLAIM? • RULE #1: CLAIM CAN BE AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE, BUT MUST NOT COVER ANY PREVIOUSLY KNOWN CONFIGURATION • RULE #2: CLAIM MUST EMBRACE SOMETHING THE INVENTOR DEVISED IP Survey -- Patents

  15. RETURN TO CAR EXAMPLE • ASSUME: CLOSEST PREVIOUSLY KNOWN MACHINE WAS THE HORSE-DRAWN WAGON IP Survey -- Patents

  16. CLAIM 1: 1. A VEHICLE, COMPRISING: (a) A CHASSIS; (b) A PLURALITY OF WHEELS ATTACHED TO SAID CHASSIS; AND (c) AN ENGINE FOR TURNING ONE OF SAID WHEELS. IP Survey -- Patents

  17. CLIENT’S PRIDE • CLIENT IS UPSET: NO MENTION OF HER 10-CYLINDER ENGINE, THE FINEST PART OF THE CREATION! • CAR WON’T BE ANY GOOD WITHOUT IT! • SAME FOR 3-SPEED TRANSMISSION IP Survey -- Patents

  18. ADVICE: • DON’T GIVE UP BROADEST SCOPE! • WRITE MANY OTHER CLAIMS, NARROWER (IN CASE CL. 1 TURNS OUT TO VIOLATE RULE #1) • EACH CLAIM IS TREATED AS A MINI-PATENT IP Survey -- Patents

  19. ONE EXCEPTION: NEW INFO ON PRIOR ART • YOU FIND OUT AT SOME POINT THAT THE LOCOMOTIVE PRE-EXISTED YOUR CLIENT’S DEVELOPMENT • LOCOMOTIVE FITS WITHIN THE CLAIM LANGUAGE • THIS MAKES THE WHOLE CLAIM INVALID IP Survey -- Patents

  20. AMENDED CLAIM 1: 1. A VEHICLE, COMPRISING: (a) A CHASSIS; (b) A PLURALITY OF WHEELS ATTACHED TO SAID CHASSIS; (c) AN ENGINE FOR TURNING ONE OF SAID WHEELS; AND (d) A STEERING DEVICE FOR TURNING AT LEAST ONE OF SAID WHEELS. IP Survey -- Patents

  21. IS THIS CLAIM VALID? • IT COVERS THE CLIENT’S CAR • BUT DOES IT ALSO COVER (“READ ON”) THE PADDLE-WHEEL STEAMBOAT?? • IF SO, INVALID; CAN WE AMEND FURTHER TO FIX THE PROBLEM? IP Survey -- Patents

  22. A BROADLY CLAIMED FAMILY IS ESSENTIAL • MOST PATENTS ARE DEAD LETTERS, BECAUSE THE CLAIM SCOPE IS NOT COMMERCIALLY MEANINGFUL • EASY TO DESIGN AROUND SUCH CLAIMS IP Survey -- Patents

  23. ONLY CLAIMS ARE HELD VALID OR INVALID – NOT “PATENTS” • EACH CLAIM IS ADJUDICATED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER CLAIMS – LIKE A MINI-PATENT IP Survey -- Patents

  24. ONLY A CLAIM CAN BE INFRINGED • ACCUSED INFRINGING PRODUCT/METHOD MUST BE WITHIN LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM • THE INFRINGING PRODUCT SELDOM LOOKS LIKE WHAT THE INVENTOR DEVISED OR SHOWED IN THE PATENT DRAWINGS IP Survey -- Patents

  25. “CLAIM SCOPE IS EVERYTHING!” IP Survey -- Patents

  26. MOST PATENTS CONTAIN MANY CLAIMS, OF VARYING SCOPE • USUAL STYLE: NARROWER CLAIMS TELESCOPE DOWNWARD • ARE NEEDED ONLY IN THE EVENT THE BROADER CLAIMS ARE HELD INVALID IP Survey -- Patents

  27. HOW EFFECTIVE IS A PATENT? • DEPENDS ON THE CLAIM SCOPE • DEPENDS ON $$ TO FIGHT • 45% OF CLAIMS ARE HELD INVALID IP Survey -- Patents

  28. DO YOU HAVE TO DO A SEARCH BEFORE FILING? • NO. BUT NOT SEARCHING ENLARGES RISK OF WRITING UNPATENTABLE CLAIMS. IP Survey -- Patents

  29. DO YOU HAVE TO BUILD AND TEST THE INVENTION BEFORE FILING? • NO. FILING APPLICATION ACTS AS “CONSTRUCTIVE” REDUCTION TO PRACTICE. • USUALLY NOT GOOD TO WAIT. IP Survey -- Patents

  30. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF GETTING A PATENT ALLOWED? • IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT CLAIM SCOPE, MAYBE 90% • BUT MOST WILL BE COMMERCIALLY INSIGNIFICANT DUE TO NARROW SCOPE – EASY TO DESIGN AROUND IP Survey -- Patents

  31. LACK OF NOVELTY FOR A CLAIM AND LOSS OF RIGHTTO A CLAIM • WE NOW HAVE TWO LAWS ON NOVELTY REQUIREMENTS: • PATENTS WITH EFFECTIVE FILING DATES ON OR AFTER 3/16/13 (“THE NEW LAW” • PATENTS WITH EFFECTIVE FILING DATE EARLIER THAN 3/16/13 (“THE OLD LAW”) IP Survey -- Patents

  32. OLD LAW WILL DOMINATE PATENT LITIGATION UNTIL AT LEAST 2020 • NEW LAW ON NOVELTY TAKES EFFECT FOR FILINGS ON OR AFTER MAR. 16, 2013 • NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN PRACTICE • PTO EXAMINERS WILL USUALLY CITE PRIOR REFERENCES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CITABLE UNDER OLD LAW AS WELL. IP Survey -- Patents

  33. PATENT-DEFEATING “PRIOR-ART” EVENTS: • EXISTING LAW: • PATENTING ANYWHERE > 1 YEAR BEFORE U.S. FILING DATE • DESCRIBING IN PRINTED PUBLICATION ANYWHERE > 1 YEAR BEFORE U.S. FILING DATE IP Survey -- Patents

  34. OFFER FOR SALE IN U.S. • PUBLIC USE IN U.S. • NOTE: ALL FOUR EVENTS CAN BE BY INVENTOR HIMSELF, OR BY THIRD PARTIES IP Survey -- Patents

  35. PRIOR INVENTING BY SOMEONE ELSE IN THE U.S., WHO DID NOT UNREASONABLY CONCEAL IT • NOTE: THIS RARELY HAPPENS. THE SYSTEM LABEL “FIRST-TO-INVENT” IS A MISNOMER IP Survey -- Patents

  36. NEW LAW(FOR APPLICATIONS FILED 3/16/13 AND LATER) • PATENT-DEFEATING EVENTS: • 3RD PARTY PUBLIC USE ANYWHERE, BEFORE HOME-COUNTRY FILING DATE • 3RD PARTY OFFER FOR SALE ANYWHERE, BEFORE HOME-COUNTRY FILING DATE IP Survey -- Patents

  37. 3RD PARTY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ANYWHERE, BEFORE HOME-COUNTRY FILING DATE • 3RD PARTY APPLICATION FILING* (IN ANY PARIS CONVENTION COUNTRY),** BEFORE HOME-COUNTRY FILING DATE *PROVIDED THE 3RD PARTY FOLLOWS UP WITH A U.S. APPLICATION. ** PARIS CONVENTION INCLUDES NEARLY ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD IP Survey -- Patents

  38. NEW LAW(FOR APPLICATIONS FILED 3/16/13 AND LATER) • PATENT-DEFEATING EVENTS: • APPLICANT’S OWN PUBLIC DISCLOSURE > 1 YEAR BEFORE FILING* • APPLICANT’S OWN OFFER FOR SALE > 1 YEAR BEFORE FILING* * FILING IN ANY COUNTRY STOPS THE CLOCK, WITH USUAL PROVISOS IP Survey -- Patents

  39. CONTEST UNDER NEW LAW • A: IS FIRST TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE • B: IS FIRST TO FILE • WHO WINS THE PATENT? • ANSWER: A WINS. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TRUMPS FIRST-TO-FILE (ANOTHER MISNOMER) IP Survey -- Patents

  40. UNDER OLD AND NEW LAWS • IF ANY ONE MEMBER OF THE CLAIMED FAMILY APPEARS IN THE APPLICABLE PRIOR ART, THE CLAIM IS INVALID • TRUE NO MATTER HOW REMARKABLE THE OTHER SPECIES ARE • DISCOVERY OF GREAT PROPERTIES WILL NOT SAVE THE CLAIM IP Survey -- Patents

  41. A CLOSER LOOK AT “DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION” • ACTUAL PRINTING NOT REQUIRED; REASONABLE ACCESSIBILITY IS SUFFICIENT • BUT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE WELL KNOWN • CAN BE IN A UNIVERSITY LIBRARY • ANY LANGUAGE • “ENABLING” DISCLOSURE IS REQ’D. IP Survey -- Patents

  42. CASE: • IN RE HALL IP Survey -- Patents

  43. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ON-SALE BAR • COMPLETED SALE NOT REQUIRED • OFFER IS ENOUGH • NEW LAW: PROBABLY HAS TO BE A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OFFER [UNCLEAR] • INVENTION MUST BE “READY FOR PATENTING” Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, 525 U.S. 55 (1998) IP Survey -- Patents

  44. CASE: • PFAFF IP Survey -- Patents

  45. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PUBLIC-USE BAR • PRIMARY PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENTATION, EVEN IN PUBLIC, TAKES ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE “PUBLIC USE” CATEGORY • PRIVATE USES CAN BE A BAR BY ANALOGY TO ON SALE, IF REGULARLY USED FOR PROFIT • LEARNED HAND’S RULE RE. METHOD CLAIM SECRETLY USED IN PROFITABLE SERVICING: REBUILDING ENGINE PARTS IP Survey -- Patents

  46. CASE: • CITY OF ELIZABETH IP Survey -- Patents

  47. SOME PRACTICAL NOVELTY PROBLEMS UNDER 1952 LAW • [SEE FILE IN CLASS MATERIALS] IP Survey -- Patents

  48. SOME NOVELTY PROBLEMS (AND ANSWERS) UNDER THE NEW LAW • FOR PATENTS FILED AFTER MAR. 15, 2013 • [SEE JANICKE-DOLAK SET OF PROBLEMS, IN COURSE MATERIALS] IP Survey -- Patents

  49. OBVIOUSNESS • THE CENTRAL GROUND OF REJECTION IN MOST APPLICATIONS • NOT CHANGED BY NEW LAW • KEYED TO THE PERSON “OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART” AT THE TIME INVENTION WAS MADE §103(a) IP Survey -- Patents

  50. CASE: • GRAHAM v. JOHN DEERE IP Survey -- Patents

More Related