Patent Law Prof. Roger Ford Class 10 October 2, 2017 Novelty and - - PDF document
Patent Law Prof. Roger Ford Class 10 October 2, 2017 Novelty and statutory bars: priority of invention Recap Recap in public use otherwise available to the public 102(e) and patent filings 102(g) and
Class 10 · October 2, 2017 Novelty and statutory bars: priority of invention
→ ‘in public use’ → ‘otherwise available to the public’ → § 102(e) and patent filings → § 102(g) and prior invention → the AIA grace period → § 102 problems
→ more § 102 problems → priority of invention → diligence and abandonment → pre-AIA § 102(c), (d), & (f)
→ Jan. 1, 2004: I file US application → July 1, 2005: PTO publishes my
application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2005: My patent issues, claiming
X and Y
→ May 1, 2006: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2006: Courts invalidate my patent
under enablement requirement
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
before Jan. 1, 2004
→ Jan. 1, 2004: I file US application → July 1, 2005: PTO publishes my
application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2005: My patent issues, claiming
X and Y
→ May 1, 2006: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2006: Courts invalidate my patent
under enablement requirement
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
before Jan. 1, 2004
→ Jan. 1, 2014: I file US application → July 1, 2015: PTO publishes my
application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2015: My patent issues, claiming X
and Y
→ May 1, 2016: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2016: Courts invalidate my patent
under enablement requirement
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
date, just filing date.
→ Jan. 1, 2014: I file US application → July 1, 2015: PTO publishes my
application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2015: My patent issues, claiming X
and Y
→ May 1, 2016: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2016: Courts invalidate my patent
under enablement requirement
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
date, just filing date.
→ Jan. 1, 2004: I file application in India → July 1, 2005: Indian patent office publishes
my application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2005: My Indian patent issues,
claiming X and Y
→ May 1, 2006: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2006: Courts invalidate my Indian
patent
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
under § 102(e)
before July 1, 2004
→ Jan. 1, 2004: I file application in India → July 1, 2005: Indian patent office publishes
my application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2005: My Indian patent issues,
claiming X and Y
→ May 1, 2006: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2006: Courts invalidate my Indian
patent
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
under § 102(e)
before July 1, 2005
→ Jan. 1, 2014: I file application in India → July 1, 2015: Indian patent office publishes
my application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2015: My Indian patent issues,
claiming X and Y
→ May 1, 2016: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2016: Courts invalidate my Indian
patent
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
§ 102(a)(2) prior art)
disclosure.
→ Jan. 1, 2014: I file application in India → July 1, 2015: Indian patent office publishes
my application, claiming X / disclosing Y
→ Dec. 1, 2015: My Indian patent issues,
claiming X and Y
→ May 1, 2016: Smith files patent claiming Y → Dec. 1, 2016: Courts invalidate my Indian
patent
→ Can Smith get a patent on Y?
§ 102(a)(2) prior art)
disclosure.
→ Novelty as a four-step process:
a subsection of § 102?
effective date of the prior-art reference and the critical date of the patent?
art reference anticipate the patent claim(s)?
→ Novelty as a four-step process:
a subsection of § 102?
effective date of the prior-art reference and the critical date of the patent?
art reference anticipate the patent claim(s)?
→ For pre-AIA § 102(a), (e) & (g), the
critical date is the date of invention
invention was effective before the prior- art reference’s effective date
→ Mostly irrelevant under the AIA
(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102 — Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — * * * (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135
extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, 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. (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102 — Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — * * * (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135
extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, 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.
→ § 102(g)(1):
country), who doesn’t abandon/conceal/ suppress, wins
→ § 102(g)(2):
abandon/conceal/suppress, wins
→ § 102(g) trailing sentence:
reduction to practice
diligence
→ A summary of § 102(g)’s priority rule:
usually has priority.
constructive reduction to practice.
to reduce to practice if the first to conceive was diligent from a time prior to the second conceiver’s conception.
suppressed, or concealed doesn’t count.
→ A summary of § 102(g)’s implicit application to
§ 102(a) & (e):
to practice before the effective date of the prior-art reference, the applicant wins.
reduction to practice.
but reduces to practice after, she may still prevail if she was diligent from a time prior to the effective date.
suppressed, or concealed doesn’t count.
time Inventor A conceived reduced to practice Inventor B conceived reduced to practice
time Inventor A conceived reduced to practice Inventor B conceived reduced to practice
time Inventor A conceived reduced to practice Inventor B conceived reduced to practice worked diligently
time Inventor A conceived reduced to practice Inventor B conceived reduced to practice worked diligently
→ 1979: Mahurkar begins work on dual-lumen,
flexible hemodialysis catheters
→ Late 1980 / early 1981: Mahurkar makes
prototypes in his kitchen that demonstrate the utility of the invention
→ July 1983: Cook catalog — allegedly
anticipating art
→ October 24, 1983: Mahurkar files patent
application
→ When did Mahurkar conceive of the
invention?
that is enabling
prototype that “he knew … would become suitable for its intended purpose by simple substitution of a soft, biocompatible material”
→ When did Mahurkar conceive of the
invention?
that is enabling
prototype that “he knew … would become suitable for its intended purpose by simple substitution of a soft, biocompatible material”
→ When did Mahurkar reduce the
invention to practice?
is “suitable for its intended purpose”
complicated
reduction to practice of his less complicated invention”
→ When did Mahurkar reduce the
invention to practice?
is “suitable for its intended purpose”
complicated
reduction to practice of his less complicated invention”
→ So Mahurkar demonstrated both
conception and reduction to practice before the prior-art reference, and so wins
→ Would he win under the AIA rule?
§ 102(a)(1) prior art
pre-Cook-catalog disclosure from himself
people in 1981 — but more than a year before filing
→ Would he win under the AIA rule?
§ 102(a)(1) prior art
pre-Cook-catalog disclosure from himself
people in 1981 — but more than a year before filing
→ Benefits of a first-to-invent system?
→ Downsides?
when there are close calls
→ Benefits of a first-to-invent system?
→ Downsides?
when there are close calls
→ Do we really need such a complex
priority rule?
→ Do we really need such a complex
priority rule?
incentive to delay reduction to practice
— different inventors will work at different speeds
→ Constructive reduction to practice:
Why does a patent application count?
→ Constructive reduction to practice:
Why does a patent application count?
actual reduction to practice
→ After the AIA:
no longer determine priority — filing date does
when an invention is “on sale,” and
→ Diligence: relevant before the
reduction to practice
→ Abandoned / suppressed /
concealed: relevant between the reduction to practice and the filing
→ Suppressed / concealed: trade
secrets are the classic example
→ Abandoned: egregious filing
delays
→ June 30, 1981: Griffith conception → Nov. 18, 1982: Kanamaru application
→ June–Sept., 1983: Griffith inactivity → Jan. 11, 1984: Griffith reduction to practice
→ When did Kanamaru reduce to
practice?
reduction to practice
in Japan, and so didn’t count for priority
→ When did Kanamaru reduce to
practice?
reduction to practice
in Japan, and so didn’t count for priority
→ Why did Griffith lose?
→ Why did Griffith lose?
before November 18, 1982 to January 11, 1984
→ Excuse #1: Griffith was seeking
external funding for this project
sometimes be a good excuse
academia!) relies on outside funding
→ Excuse #2: Griffith was waiting for
a grad student to start
and this one had no special qualifications
things other than invention, then it might sometimes lose invention disputes
→ Who gets the patent?
→ Who gets the patent?
inventor!
→ 1979: Sandoz begins looking for drugs to inhibit synthesis of cholesterol → 1982: Wattanasin is assigned to Sandoz project → 1984–85: Wattanasin synthesizes three compounds within patent claims,
all of which show in vitro inhibiting activity
→ 1985–87: Sandoz project is shelved → January 1987: Wattanasin returns to project and synthesizes four more
compounds
→ August 20, 1987: Fujikawa application → October 1987: Second-wave compounds are tested in vitro → December 1987: Most promising compounds are tested in vivo → January 1988: Sandoz patent committee approves patent application → January–May 1988: Patent information gathering → August–November 1988: Geisser prepares patent application → March 1989: Sandoz files patent application
→ When was the invention reduced to
practice?
→ When was the invention reduced to
practice?
→ When was the invention
conceived?
→ When was the invention
conceived?
but it doesn’t actually matter
→ Did Wattanasin abandon,
suppress, or conceal the invention?
→ Did Wattanasin abandon,
suppress, or conceal the invention?
enough to raise an inference of abandonment, suppression, or concealment
→ Note that the same delay before
and after reduction to practice can have strikingly different effects
diligence
abandonment
→ What is Wattanasin’s effective date
→ What is Wattanasin’s effective date
the project and from which he was diligent
→ Note how many dates can count as
the invention date under US law:
diligent up to reduction to practice
in reduction to practice
→ Wrapping up novelty and
statutory bars