Transcript Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept. 24 2003
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