Introduction to Intellectual Property

Class of Sept. 24 2003

Review: “Newness”

• Novelty s. 102(a), ss. 102(e) • Statutory bars s. 102(b)

Exception to Public Use Statutory Bar

Exception to Public Use Statutory Bar • Experimental Use Exception :

City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.

CB 163 (1877)

Other Newness Criteria

• S. 102(c) - abandonment • S. 102(d) – certain foreign applications • S. 102(g) – lack of reasonable diligence can cause priority to be lost

Problem 3-7

• Based on

Alcoa v. Reynolds Metals,

14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1170 (N.D. I. 1989)

Problem 3-8

• Based on

National Research Development Corp. v. Varian Assoc.,

822 F. Supp. 1121 (D.N.J. 1993),

aff’d in part,

30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

PRIORITY

• 102(g)(1) • 102(g)(2) • First to invent vs. First to File

HYPO

• G conceives June 30 1981 • G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 • • K files patent application Jan 14 1984

Who has priority?

HYPO

• G conceives June 30 1981 • G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 • • K files patent application Jan 14 1984

Who has priority?

HYPO 2

• G conceives June 30 1981 • K files for U.S. patent Nov. 17 1982 • • G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984

Who has priority?

HYPO 3

• • G conceives June 30 1981 • K conceives Jan 1 1982 • K reduces to practice Nov 11 1982 • G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984

Priority? Whose, if any, diligence matters?

Priority Rule §102(g) The first inventor A to reduce to practice has priority unless another inventor can prove: B & (1) first conception (2) reasonable diligence from before A’s conception date B T 1 A A B Critical Period T 2

PRIOR USER RIGHTS

• To what extent do these exist in U.S. patent law?

Non-Obviousness

• S. 103 • Purpose?

• Interpretation

Graham v. John Deere