Patentable Patents 101 Whoever invents or discovers any new and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Patentable Subject Matter -- § 101

Patentable

| |

Utility -- § 101

Novelty -- § 102 Non-obvious

• - § 103

Disclosure

• Req. –

§ 112

Patents – § 101

• “Whoever invents or discovers any new

and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101

• Broad; permissive approach
• Threshold test; “coarse filter”
• Essentially a policy question; balance

Patents – § 101 -- Exceptions

• Three judicial exceptions (Not patentable

subject matter)

• laws of nature
• physical/natural phenomena
• abstract ideas
• These exceptions are “part of the

storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (Funk Brothers)

Patents – § 101 – Living Things

• What about living things?

(Diamond v. Chakrabarty)

• Key is whether human made
• human engineered bacteria
• found bacteria
• new process for creating bacteria

NO YES YES

Patents – § 101 – Laws of Nature

• Must add enough; must apply law of nature
• Mayo v. Prometheus

Cannot simply add “well- understood, routine, conventional activity”

• Do claims

preempt any/all use

• f law of

nature?

Patents – § 101 – Laws of Nature

• Compare to
• Diamond v. Diehr (Arrhenius equation

used in rubber curing machine)

• Parker v. Flook (algorithm that calculates

alarm limits in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons)

• “[C]oncern that patent law not inhibit

further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of laws of nature” Mayo.

• Deny patents on “basic tools of scientific

and technological works”

Patents – § 101 –Laws of Nature

• Asso’c for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad

Genetics (on cert.)

Patents – § 101 –Laws of Nature

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• Machine-or-Transformation approach
• tied to a particular machine or apparatus
• OR transforms a particular article into a

different state or thing

• M-or-T not exclusive test (Bilski v. Kappos)
• allow application of abstract idea
• worry about preemption

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.
• Emphasizes pre-emption concept
• Cannot shut door to too many other

inventions

• Merely implementing on computers is not

enough to meet M-or-T test

• “[S]ingle most reasonable understanding

is that claim is directed to nothing more than a fundamental truth or disembodied concept” = abstract idea

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• Ultramercial v. Hulu (Fed. Cir. 2011)

NOT ABSTRACT

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• Again, what’s the concern?

Claim 1 in Ultramercial Ad for access to media product on Internet Downstream invention – improve by changing ad length compared to value

• f media product

+ change length based

• n value
• What is

the abstract idea?

• Do claims

preempt?

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• Dealertracker v. Huber (Fed. Cir. 2011)

ABSTRACT

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

• Looking for some limitations capture of

abstract idea by one inventor

• Ultramerical – Internet; media products
• But watch out for de facto preemption over

abstract idea

• Dealertracker – software, computers,

internet address, only mental steps

• Can use Machine-or-Transformation

approach, but not final answer

• Still ask the basic question – is the

claimed subject matter too abstract?

Patents – § 101 – Abstract Ideas

Patents – § 101 – Utility

• “Whoever invents or discovers any new

and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101

• “Operable or capable of use”
• Real question for intermediate chemical

and biological products

• Matter of when do we award patents

Patents – § 101 – Utility

• In re Fisher
• Appeal from denial of patent at PTO
• Claim 1. A substantially purified nucleic acid

molecule that encodes a maize protein or fragment thereof comprising a nucleic acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 through SEQ ID NO: 5.

• Has uses – 7 listed on p. 183
• But no “substantial utility”
• Not grant patent this early in development

process

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Disclosure

• “The specification shall contain a written

description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Enablement

• The Incandescent Lamp Patent

Claim 1 – carbonized fibrous or textile material Claim 2 -- + bulb Claim 3 – carbonized paper

• What does

the specification enable?

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Enablement

• Look at claim, and then determine does

specification enable it?

• Must teach to make and use claim
• Don’t have to actually make
• A person having ordinary skill in the art

(“PHOSITA”)

• Without undue experimentation
• Ensure truly goes into public domain
• Also patents as warehouse of knowledge

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Written Description

• Specification must describe the claim
• “[R]easonably conveys to [the PHOSITA]

that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”

• Look at the level of detail
• Difference in scope b/w disclosed species

and claimed genus

• Do not have to actually make
• But external evidence is irrelevant

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Written Description

• Can enable but not describe
• particularly if enable by undue experiment
• Concern is “hunting license”
• Mere research plans don’t create patent

rights

• Lockean aspect—only get reward for

specific effort (description?)

• But want to give inventor effective protection
• More than just was exactly disclosed

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1

• Does this

enable a nylon wire cutter?

• Describe
• ne?

Patents – § 112, ¶ 1 – Best Mode

• Two prong inquiry
• Subjective—did inventor believe best

mode?

• Objective—is it a mode regarding the

invention (the claim)?

• AIA § 15 – now only applies when getting the

patent

• not in litigation

Patents – § 102(a) – 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 by the applicant for patent, or”

Filing Date & Presumed Invention Date Invention Date

Patents – § 102(a) – Novelty

“by others” “before the invention”

Patents – § 102(a) – Novelty

• “known or used . . . in this country” – Rosaire
• ‘525 Patent and ‘085 Patent
• filing date
• Sept. 26, 1939
• say invent in 1936
• Teplitz, in 1935-36,

performed invention in Palestine, TX

• Does this mean “known or used”?
• Must have all elements of the invention
• As long as “not secret”

Patents – § 102(a) – Novelty

• “patented . . . or described in a printed

publication” – In re Hall

• Application filed on Feb. 27, 1979
• German dissertation allegedly anticipates
• submitted to dep’t in Sept. 1977
• get Ph.D on Nov. 2, 1977
• sent to library on Nov. 4, 1977
• When is it a “publication”?
• “public accessibility”
• “at least to the public interested in the

art”

Patents – § 102(b) – Statutory Bar

• 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 for patent in the United States, or

• similar two categories as in § 102(a)
• but “in this country” limitation
• focused on use or sale, not known

Filing Date Filing Date – 1 Year 1 year grace period

Patents – § 102(b) – Statutory Bar

Anyone!

Patents – § 102(b) – Statutory Bar

• “public use or on sale” – Egbert
• RE5216 filed Mar. 1866
• Made/tested it Jan-May 1855
• “intimate friend” uses, wears

in public, shows to Mr. Sturgis

• is this a “public use”?
• fact not visible irrelevant
• looking for restrictions/secrecy
• What about § 102(a)?

Patentable Subject Matter -- § 101

Patentable

| |

Utility -- § 101

Novelty -- § 102 Non-obvious

• - § 103

Disclosure

• Req. –

§ 112

Patents – § 102(a) – 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 by the applicant for patent, or”

Patents – § 102(b) – Statutory Bar

• 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 for patent in the United States, or

Patents – § 102(a),(b)

“in ¡this ¡ country” ¡ “in ¡this ¡or ¡a ¡foreign ¡ country” ¡

102(a) ¡“before ¡ the ¡inven9on” ¡ ¡

“known ¡or ¡ used” ¡[must ¡be ¡ public] ¡ “patented ¡or ¡described ¡ in ¡printed ¡publica9on” ¡

102(b) ¡“more ¡ than ¡one ¡year ¡ prior ¡to ¡the ¡date ¡

• f ¡applica9on” ¡

“public ¡use ¡or ¡

• n ¡sale” ¡

¡

“patented ¡or ¡described ¡ in ¡a ¡printed ¡ publica9on” ¡

Patents – § 102(b) – Statutory Bar

• Experimental Use Exception – City of

Elizabeth

• used on stretch of toll road 6 years before

filing patent

• Meet the 102(b) requirements?
• Why not 102(a)?
• Was it experimental use?
• exercise control?
• need for use?
• Impact on invention date

Patents – AIA – Move to First-to-File

• Passed on Sept. 16, 2011
• First to File goes into effect for new

applications filed on or after March 16, 2013

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty

• “(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be

entitled to a patent unless – (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or”

• What’s Old
• What’s New

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty

• “(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be

entitled to a patent unless – (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [to another] . . . or in [another’s] application for patent published . . . [that] was effectively filed before the effective filing date

• f the claimed invention.”
• Someone else filed first – this is First-to-File
• Concept of priority

Patents – AIA – How is it different?

• A invents an invention on Day 1. B invents the same
• n Day 2 and files for a patent that same day. A,

never telling anyone about the invention, files for a patent on Day 10. What result?

• Old law?
• A get’s patent (generally), because ok under §

102(a) (not before invention) and § 102(b) (not more than one year prior)

• New Law?
• B get’s patent, because “effectively filed before the

filing date” of A – § 102(a)(2).

Patents – AIA – How is it different?

• G publicly uses an embodiment of an invention in
• Hungary. It is never seen or learned about by

anyone in the United States. G never files a patent application anywhere. H, who had invented earlier than G did, files a U.S. application two months after the Hungarian disclosure. What result?

• Old law?
• Ok under § 102(a) (not before invention; not in US)
• Ok under § 102(b) (not more than one year prior;

not in US)

Patents – AIA – How is it different?

• G publicly uses an embodiment of an invention in
• Hungary. It is never seen or learned about by

anyone in the United States. G never files a patent application anywhere. H, who had invented earlier than G did, files a U.S. application two months after the Hungarian disclosure. What result?

• New law?
• § 102(a)(1) problem
• no longer geographic restriction
• keyed from filing date, not date of invention

Filing Date Invention Date

Patents – NEW § 102(a) – Novelty

“before . . . filing date”

• “(1) A disclosure made 1 year or less before

the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art . . . under . . . (a)(1) if— (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor . . . ; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, . . . been publicly disclosed by the inventor”

• (1)(A) is a 1 year grace for inventor’s own

disclosures (kinda like the old § 102(b))

• (1)(B) rewards the earlier disclosure

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Exceptions

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Exceptions

• “(2) A disclosure shall not be prior art to a

claimed invention under . . . (a)(2) if— (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor . . . ; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor . . . or (C) . . . .”

• Again, (2)(B) protects first to disclose

Filing Date Invalidating publication from inventor

Patents – NEW § 102(b) – Novelty

“1 year or less” OK publication from inventor

Patents – NEW § 102(a), (b)

Prior ¡ ¡ art ¡ ¡in ¡ ¡ ¡ 102(a) ¡

102 ¡(a) ¡(1) ¡ Printed ¡publica9ons, ¡ public ¡uses, ¡etc. ¡ before ¡filing ¡date ¡ ¡ ¡ 102 ¡(a) ¡(2) ¡ 1st ¡filed ¡U.S. ¡patent ¡ applica9on ¡by ¡another ¡

Excep&ons ¡ in ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 102(b) ¡ (limited ¡ ¡ to ¡1 ¡year ¡

• nly!) ¡

102 ¡(b) ¡(1) ¡ (A) ¡Any ¡“disclosure” ¡ coming ¡from ¡the ¡ applicant ¡ ¡ ¡ (B) ¡Disclosures ¡by ¡

• thers ¡made ¡aLer ¡a ¡

“public” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ the ¡applicant. ¡ 102 ¡(b) ¡(2) ¡ (A) ¡1st ¡ ¡filer ¡derived ¡ inven9on ¡from ¡2nd ¡

• filer. ¡

(B) ¡1st ¡filer ¡filed ¡aLer ¡ “public” ¡disclosure ¡by ¡ applicant/2nd ¡filer. ¡

Patents – AIA – Public Disclosure

• A invents an invention on Day 1. B invents the same
• n Day 2, never discloses. A publicly discloses

invention on Day 3. B files a patent on Day 4 and A files a patent on Day 5. Who prevails?

• Under § 102(a)(2) – B has earlier effective filing date
• BUT – § 102(b)(2)(B) – A publically disclosed

before B filed

• Under § 102(a)(1) – Disclosure before A filed
• BUT – § 102(b)(1)(A) – disclosure by A (inventor)
• And made less than 1 year before filing

Patents – AIA – Public Disclosure

• A invents an invention on Day 1. A then publically

discloses on Day 2. B invents and publicly discloses

• n Day 3. A files a patent on Day 4. Who prevails?
• Under § 102(a)(1) – Disclosed before A filed
• BUT – § 102(b)(1)(A) – disclosure by A (inventor)
• And made less than 1 year before filing
• What if A’s disclosure “secret”?
• No patent under § 102(a)(1)
• What if A waited to file 366 days after B’s disclosure?
• Beyond 1 year grace period -- § 102(b)(1)(B)

Patents – AIA – (A) Grace Periods

• A files an application on June 1 of Year 1.
• In May of Year 1, A had published her own article disclosing

the invention

• removed from prior art under (b)(1)(A).
• In April of Year 1, D stole A’s notes and placed the invention
• n sale
• removed from prior art under (b)(1)(A).
• Also in April of Year 1, D had filed a U.S. patent application

using A’s notes

• removed from prior art under (b)(2)(A).
• In each case, the art gets removed by subparagraph (A) in

either (b)(1) or (2) because the disclosure came from / was derived from A’s own work.

Patents – AIA – (B) Grace Periods

• B publicly discloses his invention in an article on January 1 of

Year 1 and eventually files an application on December 31 of that year.

• On February 1 of Year 1, I publishes her own article based on

her own research on the same subject

• removed from prior art under (b)(1)(B).
• On March 1 of Year 1 I files a patent application based on her
• wn research
• application is removed from the prior art under (b)(2)(B).

Note: First filer (I) loses patent to second filer (B).

• In both cases, I’s independent work gets excluded from the

prior art because B made an earlier “public” disclosure.

Patents – AIA – Final Thoughts

• Scope of possible prior art broader (no

geographic limitation)

• Filing early (or at least disclosing and then

filing early) is encouraged

• Case law on what is a public use or printed

publication likely still applicable

• But what about experimental use?

Patents -- Nonobviousness

• 35 U.S.C. § 103 [OLD]

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Patents – Graham Factors

=? Obvious GAP

Patents -- KSR

Asano ¡ Chevy/GM ¡ 1(a) ¡– ¡ Adjustable ¡ Brake ¡Pedal ¡ 1(b) ¡Electronic ¡ Sensor ¡at ¡Pivot ¡ Point ¡

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

• Do they qualify as prior art? (Step #1)
• Asano (patented 1991)
• Chevy/GM (public use 1994)
• Both § 102(b) (Teleflex effectively filled 1999)

Step #2

Patents – Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation

TSM Flexible Non- Exclusive =? Obvious

Patents – Common Sense

=? Obvious

Common Sense

Common Sense

Patents – Ordinary Creativity

Ordinary Creativity PHOSCITA =? Obvious

Patents – Design and Market Forces

Design Incentives and Market Forces =? Obvious

Patents – Predictability

=? Obvious Predictable Result?

Patents – Predictability

=? Obvious Predictable Result?

Patents -- Nonobviousness

• Graham Factors

(1) “the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined” (2) “differences between the prior art and the claims are to be ascertained” (3) “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved” (4) “[a]gainst this background the obviousness

• r nonobviousness of the subject matter is

determined” (5) secondary considerations.

Patents -- Leapfrog

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

• Do they qualify as prior art? (Step #1)
• Bevan (patented 1973)
• Super Speak & Read (on sale 1991)
• Reader (known from skill in the art)
• Both § 102(b) (effectively filled 1995)

Patents -- Leapfrog

Bevan ¡ ¡SSR ¡ Reader ¡ 25(a) ¡– ¡housing ¡ w/ ¡switches ¡ (b) ¡processor ¡and ¡ memory ¡ (c) ¡leDer ¡assoc. ¡ w/ ¡switch ¡ (d) ¡reader ¡ (e) ¡select ¡ leDer=assoc. ¡ sound ¡

✔ ✔ ✖ ✔

Step #2

✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Step #3

Step #4

=? Obvious Design Incentives and Market Forces Common Sense TSM

Patents – Final Step -- #5

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

• Objective Evidence (Secondary Factors)
• Commercial success
• Long-felt unsolved need
• Failure of others
• Copying
• Unexpected results

Patents – Obviousness after AIA

• “A patent for a claimed invention may not be
• btained, notwithstanding that the claimed

invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention

• pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by

the manner in which the invention was made” 35 U.S.C. 103

Patents – Administrative Challenges to Validity

• Typically, once patent issues—challenge is in

federal court

• overcome presumption of validity
• But other ways to challenge
• Pre-AIA (and still around)
• Ex Parte Reexamination
• Post-AIA
• Post Grant Review
• Inter Parties Review
• Third Party Submission