You are on page 1of 62

P ATENT LAW OUTLINE

Introduction & General Principles...........................................................................................................2
I. CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND DIRECT INRINGEMENT.......................................................................4
A. Direct In!rin"e#ent................................................................................................................... 4
$. Clai# Dra!tin" & Interpretation..............................................................................................4
1. Claim Drafting...................................................................................................................4
2. Substantive Rules of Claim Interpretation..........................................................................4
3. Procedural Rules of Claim Interpretation...........................................................................6
II. UTILIT%................................................................................................................................................. 6
A. Operational Utilit&....................................................................................................................6
$. $ene!icial Utilit&........................................................................................................................6
C. Practical Utilit&..........................................................................................................................
III. DI'CLO'URE & ENA$LEMENT............................................................................................................
A. Ena(le#ent................................................................................................................................ !
$. De!initeness................................................................................................................................ "
C. Written Description................................................................................................................... "
D. $est Mode................................................................................................................................. 1#
I). NO)ELT% & ANTICIPATION............................................................................................................... 11
A. Introduction & Anticipation 'tandard...................................................................................11
$. *+,-a./ 0no1n or Used (& Ot2ers3 Patented or Pu(lis2ed..................................................13
C. *+,-e./ Disclosures in Earlier4iled Applications -5'ecret Prior Art6................................1$
D. *+,-!./ Deri7ation !ro# Anot2er............................................................................................16
E. *+,-"./ Priorit&........................................................................................................................16
). 'TATUTOR% $AR'................................................................................................................................ 1"
A. *+,-(./ Pu(lis23 or Pu(lic Use or 'ale Outside 5Grace Period6..........................................1"
Rm%& '(perimental )se '(ception to Statutor* +ar............................................................22
$. *+,-c. & -d. -Rarel& Used.......................................................................................................23
8 *+, 'u##ar& Ta(le....................................................................................................................23
)I. NONO$)IOU'NE''.............................................................................................................................24
A. *+9 & $asic Graham In:uir&..................................................................................................24
$. KSR and 'u(tests !or O(7iousness.........................................................................................2$
C. 5'econdar& Considerations6 ; O(<ecti7e Indicia..................................................................26
D. 5'cope and Content o! t2e Prior Art6 = 1>in *+, and 5Analo"ous6....................................2
)II. PATENTA$LE 'U$?ECT MATTER......................................................................................................2!
A. Polic& & 'ources o! Aut2orit&................................................................................................2!
$. 5La1s o! Nature3 P2&sical P2eno#ena -'cienti!ic Principles.3 & A(stract Ideas6.............2!
C. Products o! Nature & Li7in" T2in"s......................................................................................2"
D. Al"orit2#s & 'o!t1are...........................................................................................................3#
E. $usiness Met2ods Patents.......................................................................................................31
, # ,
)III. INRINGEMENT...............................................................................................................................32
A. T2e Doctrine o! E:ui7alents...................................................................................................34
Rm%& Prosecution -istor* 'stoppel.....................................................................................3$
$. E@peri#ental Use De!enses to In!rin"e#ent..........................................................................36
1. Common .a/.................................................................................................................. 36
2. Statutor* 01 210e20122.....................................................................................................3
C. Indirect In!rin"e#ent..............................................................................................................3
1. Inducement....................................................................................................................... 3
2. Contributor* Infringement...............................................................................................3
D. E@2austion............................................................................................................................... 3!
Rm%& Repair3 Reconstruction Doctrine................................................................................3!
E. Di7ided In!rin"e#ent/ Multiple Persons & orei"n Acti7ities............................................3!
1. Divided Infringement under 1 210a2...............................................................................3!
2. 4oreign 5ctivit* 01 210f2 60g22&.....................................................................................3"
IA. REMEDIE'.......................................................................................................................................... 4#
A. In<unctions............................................................................................................................... 41
$. Lost Pro!its............................................................................................................................... 41
C. Reasona(le Ro&alties...............................................................................................................42
D. Will!ul In!rin"e#ent................................................................................................................42
E. Patent MarBin"........................................................................................................................43
A. LEGAL PROCE''E' O TCE PATENT '%'TEM....................................................................................43
A. Disclai#er3 Correction3 Reissue7 & Ree@a#ination..............................................................43
$. Ine:uita(le Conduct................................................................................................................ 4$
AI. TRADE 'ECREC%............................................................................................................................... 46
A. 'u(stanti7e Trade 'ecrec& La1/ t2e UT'A and EEA..........................................................4
$. Pree#ption o! 'tate Trade Re"ulation $& ederal La1.......................................................4"
, 1 ,
Introduction & General Principles
, 89at is a patent:
o a limited propert* rig9t& includes rig9ts to e(clude and alienate7 but not to use.
 eg7 mig9t not be able to use because of i2 illegalit* 0radar detector illegal in some
states7 eg2; ii2 overlapping patents 0if an improvement patent7 can<t practice
/it9out consent of initial patentee2
, W2& 2a7e patentsD
o 12 Constitutional& e(press grant of Congressional po/er
o 22 utilitarian reasons&
 a. incenti7es to create> in7est
• must provide /a*s for inventors to recoup t9eir investments. =a* not be
able to so t9is in t9e free mar%et if idea is capable of being easil* copied7
as ot9ers /ill free,ride.
o ideas are non-excludable.
• /ill be especiall* true of inventions t9at i2 can<t be %ept as trade secrets;
ii2 first mover and net/or%ing advantages not enoug9
 (. disclosure o! use!ul Bno1led"e to t2e pu(lic
• provide incentives not to %eep %no/ledge to self7 in turn spurring more
innovation
 c2 unitar* o/ners9ip
• encourages efficient e(ploitation7 prevents >traged* of commons?
overuse. +asic idea of propert* rig9ts 0Demset@2.
 Rm%& tension bet/een a2 and b2
• a2 assumes t9at trade secrec* is not enoug97 as invention can be reverse
engineered7 b2 assumes t9at /e need a /ritten description7 etc.7 in t9e
patent in order for ot9ers to understand it.
, Patent v. Arade Secrec*
o advantages of patent&
 to inventor& can license7 ma%e available to ot9ers.
 to public& get disclosure of useful ideas. Boes in to public domain after 2# *ears.
o t9us7 /e /ould e(pect to see patents7 as opposed to trade secrets7 /9en&
 12 product can easil* be reversed engineered.
 22 inventors /is9es to license freel*.
 32 s9ort,term gains /ill be more significant.
, Costs o! patents/
o 12 transaction costs& 9ard to accomplis9 all efficient licensing
 eg7 >9old,out? costs in soft/are industr*7 /9ere product relies on large number of
patented processes.
o 22 monopol* costs& inventor c9arges e(tra,competitive prices
, Patent v. Direct Subsid* for RCD
o re/ard in patent in accordance /it9 actual mar%et /ort9
o 9ard to evaluate /ort9 of researc9 e( ante
o but& no monopol* costs from subsid*7 liDuidit* problems ma* prevent funding for all
beneficial researc9
, 9 t&pes o! patent
o *. utilit& patent
 for >mac9ines7 manufactures7 composition of matter7 or processes?
 must be >novel7 useful7 and nonobvious?
, 2 ,
 most of subEect matter of course
o ,. desi"n patent
 ne/7 original7 ornamental designs
o 9. plant patent
 ase(ual and se(ual 0Plant Fariet* Protection 5ct2 reproducing breeds of plants
covered. Important in agriculture.
, 'ources o! Patent La1
o 12 Constitution
o 22 Patent 5ct 03$ )SC 2
o 32 Common .a/
o 42 PAG Regulation
o $2 Int<l Areaties
, Processes o! Patent '&ste#/
o 12 In t9e PAG
 prosecution/ patentee or assignee pursues patent application
 e@a#iner& PAG officer loo%s at application7 sees if it meets statutor*
reDuirements 0anticipation 6 prior art7 disclosure reDuirements7 etc.2
• initial reEection  amendment
• if finall* reEected7 can i2 file continuation7 ii2 appeal to Patent +oard of
PAG 0t9e P+5I27 and t9en to 4ed. Cir.7 or iii2 give up.
 inter!erence proceedin"s/ /9en t/o or more inventors appl*ing to patent
similar inventions  PAG 9earing to determine priorit*.
 publication& after 1! mont9s7 /9et9er or not granted.
 revisions after issuance&
• reissue7 ree(amination7 opposition
 Rm%& PAG 9as onl* procedural rulema%ing po/ers
o 22 In t9e Courts
 e(clusive federal Eurisdiction
 district courts&
• 9ear infringement suits broug9t b* P in first instance7 or declarator*
Eudgments broug9t b* D for invalidit*.
• get Eur* trial
 ed. Cir.& all appeals re& patent from i2 district court infringement suits; ii2 final
decisions of t9e PAG b* t9e P+5I.
• uniform subEect mater Eurisdiction given to encourage uniformit*7 and
Eudicial e(pertise7 but some t9in% federal circuit 9as gone too far in
s9aping t9e la/.
, Ele#ents o! a Patent/
o cover information& name of inventor7 date filed7 references to prior art7 etc.
o speci!ication& description of invention7 including&
 i2 /ritten description& details /9at t9e invention is.
 ii2 enablement& teac9 public 9o/ to ma%e invention.
 iii2 best mode& patentee<s optimal /a* to use invention
o clai#s& source of legal rig9ts of patent. 89at t9e patent claims is 9is invention7 /9at
e(actl* 9e 9as e(clusive rig9ts to. .imited b*
 i2 prior art& can<t claim /9at ot9ers 9ave alread* invented or /9at is obvious in
lig9t t9ereof.
 ii2 actual invention& can onl* claim t9ings *ou 9ave reali@ed.
, 3 ,
, 4 ,
I. CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND DIRECT INRINGEMENT
A. Direct In!rin"e#ent
, 8 ,E*-a. H >/9oever /it9out aut9orit*7 ma%es7 uses7 offers to sell7 sells7 an* patented invention
I/it9in t9e )SJ? infringes t9e patent?
, Rm%s&
o 12 intent irrelevant& a strict liability statute
o 22 independent invention not a defense.
, Aest for Infringement& Accused in7ention contains all the limitations o! t2e clai#s -direct.3 or
t2eir e:ui7alents. A9us t/o steps&
o 12 construe t9e claims;
o 22 determine /9et9er accused contains all t9e limitations7 ie7 /9et9er t9ere is
infringement.
$. Clai# Dra!tin" & Interpretation
1. Claim Drafting
, or#at Re:uire#ents !or Clai#s
o preamble& tells /9at /as invented 0>rec*clable cup 9older?27 not a source of limitations.
o transition& details relations9ip b3/ elements7 using stoc% terms7 e.g.&
 5co#prisin"6 H 5 C +7 and an*t9ing else. Strongest7 >open? claim.
 5consistin" o!6 H 5 C + and not9ing else. 8ea%est7 >closed? claim.
 >consisting essentiall* of? H in bet/een claims.
o bod*& consists of elements or >li#itations.? Infringements reDuires all t9e limitations 0or
an eDuivalent2 to be present.
o independent 7. dependent clai#s
 independent H doesn<t rel* on prior claims.
 dependent H uses prior claims. 'g7 >2. >5 /indmill as in claim 17 /9ereinK?
  claims structured li%e an >inverted p*ramid?& claim 1 is t9e broadest7 and
later ones narro/er.
• t9us7 an*t9ing t9at infringes 1 /ill also infringe 2. A9e redundanc* is
insurance in case claim 1 gets struc% do/n.
, drafting reDuirements&
o a2 claim must be one sentence
o b2 9ave to ma%e clear&
 i2 interaction bet/een elements;
 ii2 internal references specified& /9ic9 element discussed must be clear.
, 5lternative st*les&
o *. 5#eans F !unction6 st&le -8 *,,3 G H.
 e.g.7 claims >means for doing LK? =ust 9ave more t9an one limitation.
 Co7ers t2e correspondin" #eans as descri(ed in t2e speci!ication and t2e
e:ui7alents t2ereo!.
o 22 Jepsen claims
 used for improvements& >89erein t9e improvement comprisesK?
2. Substantive Rules of Claim Interpretation
, Met2ods o! Clai# Interpretation/
o *. Perip2eral Clai#in" H claims describe >outer boundar*? of legal rig9ts. 5ssociated
interpretation /ill be fairl* literal.
, $ ,
 current )S approac97 /it9 t9e doctrine of eDuivalents 0Do'2 giving some slac%
around t9e boundar*.
o ,. Central Clai#in" ; claim onl* >9eart of invention?. 5ssociated interpretation /ill be
liberal.
 old )S approac9.
 court later decides /9et9er accused >substantiall* similar? to *our invention.
o 9. Purposi7e Clai#in" ; construe in lig9t of bot9 goals of patent la/ and language.
 'uropean7 in,bet/een approac9.
o Rm%& reasons /9* defining boundar* if difficult&
 a2 limitations of language
 b2 invention is bot9 ne/7 and tec9nical
o Comparison of approac9es&
 12 predictabilit* and notice to t2e pu(lic  literal interpretation
• /9at public to %no/ /9at t9e* need to license7 allo/ t9em to design
around. Clear /9at rig9ts are.
 22 !airness to t2e in7entor  generous interpretation
• don<t /ant inventor to be victimi@ed b* limitations of language7 allo/
ot9ers to cleverl* s%irt t9e claims *et ta%e t9e ideas.
• t9is concern motivates t9e Do'.
 32 burden on t9e applicant
• advantage of perip9eral claiming. Information,forcing7 in t9at patentee
forced to be clear and not vague.
, Rules o! Clai# Construction
o Philips 04ed. Cir. 2##$2 H claims to be construed contextually 7 in lig9t of bot9 intrinsic
and e(trinsic evidenceMnot simple dictionar* literalism.
 reEects Texas Instruments dictionar*,oriented approac9.
 4ed. Circuit 5pproac9 to Claim Interpretation. Consider7 /it9 decreasing
significance&
• 12 plain meaning N meaning of a P-GSIA5 /9o read t9e specification.
o P-GSAI5 N >person 9aving ordinar* s%ill in t9e art?
• 22 intrinsic evidence& claims t9emselves7 specification7 prosecution
9istor*7 circumstances and conte(t.
• 32 e(trinsic evidence& e(pert testimon*7 treatises7 dictionar* 0lesser
significance2
o dictionaries often give meaning different from P-GSIA57 since
meaning can be field,specific
o concern for litigation bias /3 e(pert testimon*.
 as applied& >baffle? given broad meaning7 in lig9t of ot9er claims.
o Canons of Claim Construction&
 12 >patentee can be o/n le(icograp9er? 0define t9eir o/n terms2
 22 s9ouldn<t >read limitations into t9e claims from t9e specification?
 32 narro/ construction if need to save validit*
 42 patentee can<t recapture territor* t9e* 9ave disclaimed
 $2 claim differentiation 0anti,redundanc*2& give different claims different scopes
 62 purpose of patent
o Wright Co. 0.earned -and7 O7 1"1#2 H t2e 5pioneer rule6/ pioneerin" in7entionIs
clai#s construed (roadl&
, 6 ,
 9ere7 t9e 8rig9t brot9ers claim >means of moving rudder and flap in unison to
stabili@e plane?
 9eld& control b* t9e pilot an >eDuivalent? of a rope 0means in specification27 using
broad Do' for pioneer invention.
3. Procedural Rules of Claim Interpretation
, Markman 0)S 1""62 H Clai# construction a pure #atter o! la1. No <ur& re:uired under Et2
A#end#ent.
o polic* grounds&
 12 uniformit*& Eudges /ill be more consistent
 22 e(pertise& Eudges better at tec9nical7 linguistic parsing of claim interpretation
o  5Markman 2earin"s6 N Eudges construe claims as matter of la/ at outset of t9e trial
 pros& encourages earl* settlement7 narro/s contested issues
 cons& 9ard to do in a vacuum 0t9oug9 e(perts testif*2
, Cybor H clai# interpretation re7ie1ed de novo on appeal
o ma%es sense as it<s a matter of la/
o but& arguabl* t9ere are underl*ing factual elements7 trial Eudge closer to t9e tec9nolog*7
9eard e(perts and Eudge credibilit*7 deference appropriate.
o man* members of t9e federal circuit uncomfortable /it9 Cybor
 see claim construction as a mi(ed issue of la/ and fact7 9ig9 reversal rate of 4ed.
Cir.7 inappropriate to appeals court role.
II. UTILIT%
8 *+* H >89oever invents or discovers7 an* ne/ and useful process7 mac9ineK?
4  t9ere 9as to be a utilit*
8 *,* , >A9e specification s9all contain a /ritten description of t9e invention7 and t9e manner and
process of ma%ing and using itK?
4  t9e utilit* 9as to be disclosed7 and the utility requirement assessed at the time of application.
4 /9at level and t*pe of utilit* is reDuired7 9o/ever7 is a matter of common la/K
A. Operational Utilit&
4 > operational utilit*? N it actuall* /or%s.
o eg7 couldn<t patent >a perpetual motion mac9ine7 comprisingK?
o rarel* an issue
4 burdens&
o PAG must first s9o/ invention is >doubtful7? t9en applicant can rebut.
4 /9at 9ave t9is at all: If it doesn<t /or%7 9o/ can an*one ever infringe:
o concern& fraud. Betting someone to believe in *our fanciful discover* because *ou 9ave
a patent.
4 Rm%& commercial feasibilit* not reDuired. Eust t9at it functions.
$. $ene!icial Utilit&
4 > beneficial utilit*? N not sociall* 9armful 0immoral or inEurious2
o eg7 probabl* couldn<t patent somet9ing against universal state or federal la/ 0>a means
for poisoning peopleK?2
4 Lowell 0)S 1!12 0Stor*7 O.2 H in7ention need onl& 5not (e !ri7olous or in<urious to t2e 1ell4
(ein"3 "ood polic&3 and sound #orals o! societ&6
, ,
o onl* a minimum thresholdM>not 9armful?Mnot t9e old standard t9at it be sufficientl*
useful and important
 avoids Eudicial assessments of social /ort97 /9ic9 is left to t9e mar%et
o 9ere7 patent allo/ed even t9oug9 pump invented /as arguabl* inferior in function to its
predecessors.
4 Ji!y Whip 04ed. Cir. 1"""2 H ver* little left of modern beneficial utilit* doctrine.
o 9ere7 patent allo/ed on product /9ose purpose is to deceive customers 0Euice mac9ine
t9at serves *ou from a separate container2
 rationale& not all deceptions are 9armful 0eg7 fa%e diamonds27 and t9is s*stem
prevents spoiling.
o reflects reticence of Eudges to be moral arbiters.
C. Practical Utilit&
4 > practical utilit*? N some specific7 non,trivial7 substantive use.
o most of cases under t9is prong of t9e doctrine.
o big issue in cutting edge researc9 /9ere inventor doesn<t %no/ specificall* /9at use
mig9t be.
4 "renner v. Mason 0)S 1"662 H patent soug9t for process for ma%ing steroid. =ason7 to s9o/
first to invent7 must also s9o/ 9e %ne/ of a utilit* before t9e ot9er inventor.
o =ason argues& i2 it<s similar to anot9er %no/n7 useful steroid7 an* process t9at produces
concrete product is useful.
o A9e Court&
 /ant to encourage people to discover uses7 don<t /ant to give inventor monopol*
on t9is. Peed for >man* e*es? on t9e problem.
o 9eld& inventor must 9ave some practical use in order to obtain a patent.
 still unclear& 9o/ muc9 a use suffices:
4 #n re "rana (4ed. Cir. 1""$2 H patent on anti,tumor drug /9ic9 /or%s in mice7 not clear re&
9umans.
o PAG reEected as no specific use against 9uman disease raised.
o -eld& burden is initiall* on PAG to raise doubt about utilit* alleged in disclosure.
 9olds burden not satisfied7 as P-GISA5 /ouldn<t 9ave reasonable doubt about
effectiveness in 9umans
o rationale& 9uman testing large investment. Peeds certaint* for companies to underta%e
t9is. 8ant to encourage development of t9ese drugs.
4 PTO Guidelines
o *JJK/ use must be >specific and credible?
 seems to follo/ Brana. Don<t 9ave to prove use7 Eust t9at is it li%el* to /or% as
alleged.
 but biotec9nolog* patents raise ne/ concernsK
o ,++*/ use #ust (e 5speci!ic36 5credi(le36 and 5su(stantial6. I.e.7
 >specific? N not so vague as to be meaningless
 not Eust basic researc9 0stud* /it9out idea of practical use2;
 not a met9od of ma%ing or stud*ing somet9ing /it9in specific use;
 not >t9ro/,a/a*? utilit* 0eg7 allege use as doorstop2
4 #n re $isher 04ed. Cir. 2##$2 H re:uires 5real 1orld6 use 1it2 5i##ediate (ene!it to pu(lic6
o raises t9e bar Duite a bit7 follo/s t9e 2##1 guidelines.
o 9ere7 claims to 'SAs 0portions of DP52 as t9emselvesM/it9out an* idea of /9ic9
proteins t9e* e(press or /9at t9e proteins doMreEected.
, ! ,
o Rader<s dissent& t9ese are in effect7 researc9 tools. A9eir use is to aid in researc97 and /e
allo/ patents on researc9 tools all t9e time.
III. DI'CLO'URE & ENA$LEMENT
8 **,3 G *& ,/ >A9e specification s9all contain a /ritten description of t9e invention7 and of t9e manner
and process of ma%ing it7 so as to enable an* person s%illed in t9e art Kto ma%e and use t9e same
IenablementJ7 and s9all set fort9 t9e best mode contemplated b* t9e inventor for carr*ing out t9e
invention. A9e specification s9all include on or more claims particularl* pointing out and distinctl*
claiming IdefinitenessJ t9e subEect matter.?
4 L Re:uire#ents o! Disclosure/
o *. ena(le#ent
o ,. de!initeness
o 9. 1ritten description
o L. (est #ode
4 Aiming& 5ssessed at time of t9e application.
4 T2eor& o! Disclosure/ Patent La1Is %id Pro %o
o rationale& in return for patent monopol*7 *ou must full* e(plain and disclose *our
invention so as to give ideas to t9e public7 encourage follo/ innovation. 0rant v.
!aymond2
o benefits of disclosure3 enablement&
 12 discourages /asteful re,e(perimentation
 22 more follo/,on innovation
 32 prevents getting patent /9ile simultaneousl* %eeping as trade secret
 +)A& don<t /ant to reDuire too muc9 specificit* so as to ma%e process
/astefull* tedious
A. Ena(le#ent
4 9istorical roots
o &he #n!andes!ent Light Case 0)S 1!"$2 H Sa/*er and =an invent filament made from
carboni@ed paper. Claim 1C22 an* filament made from carboni@ed or fibrous material; 32
claims t9e carboni@ed paper filament. 'dison7 after e(perimenting /it9 man* filaments7
9as patent on particular bamboo one 9e found /or%s best.
 9eld& claims 1 and 2 invalid for lac% of enablement. Inventors discovered
not9ing special about t9is particular class of filamentsMsome /ere good and
some notMand onl* enabled t9e one. A9us claim more t9an t9e* discovered.
• 'dison<s man* e(periments s9o/ed t9at7 P-GSIA5 could not find t9e
effective ones /it9out undue e(perimentation7 t9us claims 1C2 not
enabled.
4 modern doctrine
o #n re $isher 0CCP5 1"#2 H A9e scope of enablement must be roug9l* commensurate to
t9e scope of t9e claims.
 facts& inventors enabled pregnanc* test /it9 potenc* of 1,2 IA). Claimed
>open,ended? range of all tests >at least 1 IA).? ReEected as not enabled.
 Test/ enablement if specification provides sufficient teac9ing so t9at P-GSIA5
is able to ma%e use of full of invention /it9out >undue e(perimentation?
, " ,
• t9us7 scope o! ena(le#ent = disclosed in speci!ication F Bno1n to
PCO'ITA 1>o undue e@peri#entation. Claims can<t go be*ond t9is
/it9out failing for enablement
o 'mgen ; attempt to claim an* DP5 seDuence t9at 9as particular properties similar to one
t9e*<ve found. =an* possibilities7 but t9e*<ve onl* found a fe/.
 science is unpredictable7 so P-GSIA5 /ouldn<t be able to reliabl* find t9e ot9ers
 no enablement.
o T2e Wands actors/ is t2e e@peri#entation re:uired 5undue6D Consider/
 12 Duantit* of e(perimentation; 22 amount of guidance given; 32 presence or
absence of /or%ing e(amples; 42 nature of t9e invention; $2 prior art; 62 s%ill
of P-GSIA5; 2 predictabilit* of t9e art; !2 breadt9 of t9e claims.
• often7 predictabilit* of t9e art important. 0eg7 Incandescent .ig9t Case2
 in "ands7 enabled " of 143 member class t9e* claim7 and process 9eld detailed
enoug9 for P-GSIA5 to ma%e t9e rest.
• also important t9at t9e* enable t9e starting materials.
o +urden of Proof& PAG must set fort9 reasonable basis /9* it believes claim is not
enabled7 t9en s9ifts to applicant.
4 5Prop2etic E@a#ples6
o don<t /ant to restrict claims to Eust /9at is in t9e specification7 /ant to protect small
inventor
o > prop9etic e(amples? allo/ed for enablement7 t9oug9 /or%ing e(amples preferred.
.imitations&
 12 must be enoug9 so t9at P-GSIA5 can see 9o/ it /or%s7 and t9at it /ill /or%
 22 can<t mislead t9e PAG7 must ma%e clear t9at *our prop9esies are suc9 and
report to t9em it prop9esies fail 0#urdue #harma2
 32 must be more t9an a >respectable guess7? even if later proved true
0!asmussen2
• *our %no/ledge must be suc9 t9at a P-GSAI5 /ould believe it /ill
/or%.
$. De!initeness
4 definiteness N >particularl* point out and distinctl* claim? t9e subEect mater
4 rationales/
o *. clear notice to t2e pu(lic a(out 12at is clai#ed
o ,. in!or#ation4!orcin"/ (urden on applicant to clearl& disclose
4 '(amples
o (rthokineti!s 04ed. Cir. 1"!62 H indefiniteness must be assessed in lig9t of subEect
matter.
 test !or inde!initeness/ Would a PCO'ITA understand 12at is clai#edD
 claim for c9air >so dimensioned as to be insert,able into car door?
 5llo/ed since /ould be tedious to specif* all possibilities7 could loo% at cars and
give specific si@e limitsMt9e claim is clear enoug9 to P-GSIA5.
o Std. (il 04ed. Cir. 1"!$2 H claim 9eld void as >partiall* soluble? not defined.
 term 9as no clear meaning in t9e field7 to P-GSIA5
 concern t9at term entered into application to be vague7 e(tend claims
• but unclear if t9e* s9ouldn<t Eust construe it narro/l* to avoid invalidit*
C. Written Description
, 1# ,
4 old /ritten description reDuirement& policing >no ne/ matter?
o 8 *9,/ An a#end#ent s2all introduce 5ne1 #atter6
o rationale& since get benefit of t9e date of filing7 amendments to claims can onl*
encompass t9ings /it9in /ritten description of application as originally filed.
 prevent >gamesmans9ip? in e( post claim e(tension via amendment7
4 since 1""& an e(panded /ritten description reDuirement
o controversial& some see cases as reDuiring a >super,enablement?7 not clear /9at
distinguis9es t9ese cases from enablement.
o Gentry Gallery 04ed. Cir. 1""!2 H in7entor #ust s2o1 5possession o! t2e in7ention6 in
speci!ication. CanIt clai# t2in"s t2e 1ritten description doesnIt pro7e3 to a
PCO'ITA3 t2at &ou conte#plated.
 facts& /ritten description onl* tal%s of placing controls on t9e console. Claim
tal%s of placing t9e console an*/9ere. Inventor admits 9e didn<t consider
placing t9e controls else/9ere until 9e sa/ competitors do so.
 > omitted element? test& if claims omit an essential element from t9e
specification7 fails /ritten description.
• Pe/man critici@es t9is reading.
o Rm%& /ritten description a Duestion of fact7 revie/ed for clear error.
o )li Lilly 04ed. Cir. 1""2 H claim to cDP5 insulin seDuence. Disclosed rat version7 and
e(ample stating generall* 9o/ to get 9uman seDuence.
 reEected as >general met9od? not enoug9 to s9o/ possession of t9e invention7
fails /ritten description.
 unclear /9* t9is s9ouldn<t be an enablement case.
o $i%ardtech 04ed. Cir. 2##62 0Rader7 O.7 dissenting from denial of re9earing2
 s9arpl* critici@es /ritten description reDuirement as opaDue and confusing.
 /ould let enablement police t9e >possession of t9e invention? ground7 return
/ritten description to old >no ne/ matter? role
4 PTO Written Description Guidelines ,++*/
o *. presu#ption o! ade:uac& i! no 5no ne1 #atter6 issue
o ,. Written description inade:uate i!/
 i2 solel* met9od and function7 /it9 no connection bet/een structure and function
0&li $illy 2
o 9. 5possession o! in7ention6 !actors/
 actual reduction to practice
 >read* for patenting?
 sufficient identif*ing c9aracteristics
D. $est Mode
4 8 *,,3 Q */ reDuires inventor to disclose t9e >best mode? of implementing invention 'no(n to him
at the time of the application .
o subEective& onl* need to disclose best mode if *ou 9ave one
o timing& assessed at application. Peed not update if later figure out a better one. 0)pectra
#hysics2
4 A/o prongs 0Chem!ast2&
o *. su(<ecti7e/ did t9e inventor fail to disclose 9is best mode:
 canIt conceal /9at *ou %ne/ at t9e time
o ,. o(<ecti7e/ /as t9e disclose adeDuate:
 disclose #ust (e ade:uate to ena(le t2e (est #ode H i.e.7 P-GSIA5 must be
able to ma%e use /it9out undue e(perimentation.
, 11 ,
4 '(amples&
o Randome* 0fed. cir. 1"!!2 H inventor conceals cleaning solution of >"1R alco9ol
solution or non,residue detergent solution li%e Randome( $#2!1? as part of best mode.
 first issue& "1R /as not reall* a best mode7 in fact it /as dangerous.
• 9eld& GS to list more t9an t/o options
• dissent& t9is violated implied dut* of good fait9 re& best mode.
 second& do t9e* need disclose t9e formula of $#2!1:
• 9eld& cleaner is not /it9in patent7 so can %eep formula a secret.
o Chem!ast H invention if grommet7 /9ic9 is enabled7 but fails disclose material to be
used7 since supplier %eeping t9is as trade secret. Aells onl* to use material >sufficientl*
9ard and rigidK?
 9eld& fails second prong of best mode7 as disclosure not enoug9 to enable
P-GSIA5 to practice best mode.
• unli%e Randome(7 material is central to ma%ing use of invention7 and no
supplier disclosed.
4 Rm%& best mode reDuirement is controversial.
o con
 )S alone among maEor nations reDuiring best mode
 often7 information not ver* good& onl* /9at invention %no/s at t9e time.
 if best mode trade secret7 deters patenting.
 difficult subEective issues of proof
o pro
 forces an additional7 often useful disclosure as part of Duid pro Duo
I). NO)ELT% & ANTICIPATION
$i" Picture/ L Re:uire#ents !or Patentin"
4 *. No7el -8 *+,-a.3 -e.3 -"..
o determined at date of invention
o need single piece of prior art /it9 all t9e limitations
4 ,. Nono(7ious -8 *+9.
o determined at date of invention
o can use combinations of prior art
o no patent if >differences bet/een subEect matter soug9t to be patented and prior art are
suc9 t9at t9e subEect matter as a /9ole /ould 9ave been obvious at t9e time of invention
to a P-GSIA5? 01 1#32
4 9. Not (arred (& statute -8 *+,-(.3 -c.3 -d..
o determined at date of filing
4 L. In7ented (& Applicant -Deri7ation. -8 *+,-!..
o can<t steal *our invention from anot9er.
A. Introduction & Anticipation 'tandard
4 general novelt* test& Peed
o i. a sin"le re!erenceM
o ii. 1it2 5e!!ecti7e date6 -pu(lication. (e!ore 5critical date6 -date o! in7ention.
 >critical date? often ta%en as filing date unless difference matters7 or if P can<t
prove date of earlier invention.
, 12 ,
o iii. t2at anti!ipates t2e clai#ed in7ention.
4 'tandard !or Anticipation. 4or eac9 claim7 need&
o *. sin"le re!erence
o ,. disclosin" ALL ele#ents o! t2e clai#
 $ut/ 5doctrine o! in2erenc&6 = even if some element missing7 can still
anticipate if element >in9erent? in t9e disclosure. Claim limitation must be
necessaril* present.
 5in2erent6 =
• a. #issin" ele#ent in re!erence 1ould (e reco"niNed (& a PCO'ITA
as necessaril& present in t2e t2in" descri(ed -Robertson. OR
• (. present as a #atter o! p2&sical or natural la1 -S!hering.
 in close cases7 consider polic* of not removing t9ings from public domain7 and
anticipation,infringement s*mmetr*.
o 9. t2at ena(les t2e in7ention.
o P.+. Tuestion of fact
4 '(amples
o #n re Robertson 04ed. Cir. 1"""2 H prior patent arguabl* anticipates7 but lac%s an
element& a t9ird means of fastening.
 PAG& t9oug9 element omitted7 doctrine of in9erenc* applies.
 Court& Strict identit* of all elements reDuired7 unless P-GSAI5 /ould recogni@e
missing element as necessary .
• >mere possibilit* not enoug9 for in9erenc*. =ust be necessarily
disclosed.?
 Pote& >anticipation,infringement? s*mmetr*& if /ould infringe e( post7 clearl*
s9ould anticipate e( ante. -o/ever7 no precise s*mmetr* as strict identit*
reDuired for anticipation7 /9ereas eDuivalents can be considered under
infringement 0Do'2.
• +ut& obviousness7 in9erent anticipation fill t9is gap.
o In re )cheiber 04ed. Cir. 1""2 H patent for popcorn dispenser alleged to be anticipated b*
structurall* similar oil dispenser
 at issue& /9et9er patent in9erentl* disclosed functional limitation to dispense
Eust a fe/ %ernels.
• court 9olds it does7 /it9 rationale t9at don<t /ant to ta%e t9ings out of
public domain Eust because ne/ use t9oug9t up.
• dissent accuses maEorit* of 9indsig9t bias.
 eventuall* patent given /it9 absolute si@e limitation on opening.
• but& /ill need to get licensing from older patentee to practice.
o S!hering Corp. 04ed. Cir. 2##32 H Sc9ering claims patent on metabolite of previous
invention7 Claritin.
 a semi,transparent attempt to e(pand life of t9eir patent.
 in9erent anticipation:
• no one /as a/are of metabolite at time of prior patent7 t9us Sc9ering
argues P-GSIA5 could not 9ave recogni@ed t9is element under
!obertson.
 2eld/ reco"nition (& PCO'ITA not re+ired !or in2erent anticipation. I!
product a 5natural result6 o! prior re!erence3 it is in2erentl& anticipated.
• Rm%& can li%el* patent metabolite in purified form7 Eust not in all its
forms.
, 13 ,
• an 5anti4(acBslidin"6 principle/ can<t e(clude public from practicing
t9e prior art 0infringementHanticipation s*mmetr*2
 polic*& s9ouldn<t be allo/ed to ta%e an invention 0Claritin2 out of public domain3
e(pand life of *our monopol*.
4 Genus 7. 'pecies
o *. re!erence to species  "enus is anticipated
 i.e.7 can<t patent /9ole range of c9emicals is one of group alread* disclosed.
 eg7 claim to all clot9ing anticipated b* prior reference to soc%s
o ,. re!erence to "enus does not i#pl& species anticipated
 i.e.7 even if class of c9emicals patented7 can patent a member 0or smaller class2 of
t9e group so long as t9e additional limitation is nonobvious.
• /ill create >bloc%ing patents? situation 0/ould need t/o approvals to
practice t9e patented member of t9e patented group2
• rationale& /ant to encourage innovation /it9in a patented groups.
 eg7 claim to soc%s mig9t not be anticipated b* prior patent on clot9ing7 so long as
9ave discovered somet9ing nonobvious and novel about t9is smaller class.
4 Accidental Anticipation
o Rule/ 5accidental anticipation6 not enou"2 !or anticipation
 rationale& unli%e >in9erent anticipation?7 /e are not ta%ing an*t9ing out of t9e
public domain b* granting patent.
• unrecogni@ed invention >gives not9ing to t9e /orld?
• /on<t stop people from practicing t9e prior art.
o #n re Seaborg 0CCP5 1"642 H patent claimed on ne/l* discovered element "$.
 element not naturall* occurring7 but 4ermi<s reactors /ould 9ave produced ver*
trace amounts of it7 t9oug9 no one /as a/are of it and it /ould 9ave been
impossible to isolate.
 9eld& accidental anticipation does not invalidate claim.
o &ilghman v. Pro!tor H invention to brea% do/n animal fat from gl*cerin
 alleged anticipation& person 9ad noticed t9at steam engine7 /9en lubricated /it9
animal fat7 gave >scum? on t9e /ater. 'ngine /as performing t9e process7 but no
one reali@ed it.
 9eld& accidental anticipation not enoug9 to invalidate.
• closer case& unli%e Seaborg7 Ailg9man did not invent process to discover
and isolate. )nclear /9et9er 9e s9ould get patent for Eust noticing3
reali@ing use.
4 Ena(le#ent Re:uire#ent
o ,a-ner 0CCP5 1"6"2 H ena(le#ent re:uire#ent !or anticipation less t2an **,
standard. Need onl& ena(le t2e #aBin"3 not t2e use.
 rationale& don<t /ant to ta%e t9ings out of t9e public domain.
 +)A& if not enabled7 public doesn<t reall* 9ave possession.
o Lo!kwood 04ed. Cir. 1""2 H i! prior art is 5pu(lic use63 ena(le#ent satis!ied (&
reduction to practice.
 facts& airline reservation s*stem7 %ept as trade secret. 8ould t9in% t9is prior use
not enabling7 but 9eld t9at it is and prevents patent.
$. *+,-a./ 0no1n or Used (& Ot2ers3 Patented or Pu(lis2ed
4 8 *+,-a. / A person s2all (e entitled to a patent unless/
o t2e in7ention 1as 5Bno1n or used (& ot2ers in t2is countr&6 OR
, 14 ,
 Rm%& onl* applies domesticall*.
o 5patented6 in t2is or a !orei"n countr& OR
o 5descri(ed in a printed pu(lication6 an&12ere
4 50no1n (& Ot2ers6
o .at/l &r!k Pllers H *+,-a. re:uires pbli! knowledge. -Penno!k.
 9ere7 fact t9at invention ma* 9ave been t9oug9t up b* a fe/ individuals *ears
ago on a lost tableclot9 dra/ing doesn<t anticipate7 as not public 'no(ledge.
 rationales&
• encourage disclosure;
• not ta%ing an*t9ing a/a* from t9e public;
• prevent difficult* evidentiar* problems;
• prevent fraud.
o Corro(oration Rule/ oral testi#on& to in7alidate a patent #ust (e corro(orated.
One personIs testi#on&3 alone3 is not enou"2 -$innegan Corp..
 rationales& fraud; 9indsig9t bias; memor* problems.
 'g7 Barbed "ire Cases H /itnesses testimon* t9at t9e* 9ad seen fence e(9ibited
9eld not to invalidate patent.
o 5Lost Art6/ No anticipation 12en Bno1led"e 2as (eco#e lost. -Gayler v. Wilder.
 ayler H safe built7 but no longer e(tant and ever*one /9o 9ad seen it 9ad
forgotten it. Po anticipation as prior art >lost.? Public still benefits from
disclosure.
4 5Used (& Ot2ers6
o lo/er t9res9old of public,ness reDuired.
 rationale& use in9erentl* more public7 less concern for fraud.
 counter& if use onl* %no/n to a fe/7 t9e public still benefits from t9e disclosure7
/9ic9 /e /ant to incentivi@e.
o Rosaire 0$t9 Cir. 1"$$2 H use is pu(lic3 and anticipates3 i! 5done openl& in t2e
ordinar& course o! (usiness6
 9ere7 colleagues field tests at Bulf Gil sufficient for a public use.
• critical facts& no confidentialit* agreements signed7 no attempt to %eep
secret
 argument t9at it /as an >e(periment? fails as tec9niDue perfected.
o WL Gore 04ed. Cir. 1"!32 H 5nonsecret6 use in t2e usual course o! (usiness3 !or
co##ercial purposes3 is enou"2 !or a pu(lic use.
 sets a fairl* lo/ bar
4 Pu(lications
o Rules/
 5pu(lication6 = 5enou"2 currenc& to #aBe t2e 1orB part o! t2e possessions
o! t2e art6 -Jo!kms.
 Klop-enstein !actors/
• 0e&stone o! anal&sis/ disse#ination and a7aila(ilit& to t2e pu(lic.
Consider/
o *. e@pertise o! tar"et audience
o ,. len"t2 o! ti#e displa&ed
o 9. e@pectation o! -not. cop&in"
o L. ease o! cop&in"
o K. or"aniNed3 searc2a(le3 accessi(leD
• fact,based7 multi,factor inDuir* /it9 accessibilit* as touc9stone.
, 1$ ,
o '(amples&
 Joc'mus 0.earned -and7 O2 H catalogue7 t9oug9 onl* 1### made7 and b* nature
ep9emeral 0cf. boo%s2 9eld a >publication?
• /9*& target audience /as e(perts7 no e(pectation of secrec*.
 *lopfenstein H slide presentation7 posted at conference for t9ree da*s7 9eld a
publication. 05 1#20b2 case7 but anal*sis t9e same2
• /9*& e(pert audience7 no e(pectation of limits on cop*ing7 eas* to cop*
and later disseminate.
 In re Cronyn v. In re +all H student t9eses inde(ed b* name not a publication7 but
/ere if inde(ed b* subEect matter
• %e* is t9at latter are accessible.
 ,orthern Telecom H copies is private corporate librar* not a publication7 as not
accessible to t9e general public.
o Rm%& >defensive publication?
 inventors use federal inventions registration 0SIR2 for ideas t9e* do not /is9 to
patent7 but /ant to pro9ibit ot9ers from patenting.
o polic&/
 broad def of > publication?& encourage inventor to discover prior art7 and t9us
avoid duplication of effort 0>re,invention?2
• but t9ere are search costs. Don<t /ant to over,encourage searc9ing.
• modern doctrine arguabl* goes too far7 encourages /asteful searc9ing.
 for limited def. of >publication?& if printed resource so obscure7 public gets
benefit from disclosure.
4 5Patented6
o rarel* used& almost all patents /ill be publications7 so t9is 9as little independent force.
o Reeves "ros 01"662 H Berman >pett* patents?7 9eld not be publications7 but still
anticipate. -eld&
 onl* claims of patent count for anticipation
 > patent? for 1#20a2 is an*t9ing granting rig9ts to e(clude.
C. *+,-e./ Disclosures in Earlier4iled Applications -5'ecret Prior Art6.
4 Milbrn 0)S 1"262 H 89itford 9as patent7 but D claims invention /as described in patent filed
earlier t9an 89itford7 t9oug9 it /as not publis9ed or issued at t9e time 89itford filed.
o Rm%s&
 earlier patent disclosed invention but did not claim it7 so no priorit* issue
 earlier patent can<t be prior art7 since not publis9ed on filing date.
o -eld& earlier patent 0>secret prior art?2 defeats 89itford<s claim.
 rationale& PAG<s dela* in processing s9ouldn<t affect patent rig9ts.
 +ut& seems unfair to 89itford7 /9o 9ad no notice7 and indeed couldn<t 9ave
%no/n about earlier art.
o end result& invention in t9e public domain7 unless 89itford can prove 9e /as t9e first to
invent.
4 8 *+,-e./ codifies -ilburn. No patent i! t2e in7ention 1as descri(ed in/
o -e. -*. an application !or patent (& anot2er Oe7entuall& pu(lis2edP is !iled in t2e U'
(e!ore t2e in7ention (& t2e applicantM OR
 doesn<t appl* to inventions t9at are abandoned or /it9dra/n7 i.e.7 never
publis9ed7 i.e.7 t9at never ma%e it to t9e public domain.
, 16 ,
o -e.-,. a patent "ranted in an application !or patent !iled (& anot2er in t2e U' (e!ore
date o! in7ention.
 PCA applications treated t9e same as )S so long as )S one of t9e countries
listed7 and eventuall* publis9ed in 'nglis9.
• Rm%& PCA N >Patent Cooperation Areat*? H permits unified international
application. A9ese treated t9e same as )S for 1#20e2.
 C-. !orei"n !ilin"s under Paris Con7ention 0111"2
• /9en follo/ed b* )S application /3in 1 *ear7 use foreign filing date for
purposes of priorit*
• but7 for purposes of 1#20e2 secret prior art7 )S filing date is used.
4 '(amples&
o 12 Stan files first7 G9m s9ortl* t9ereafter. Stan<s patent issues first. Stan<s application
disclosed but did not claim invention L; G9m claimed L G9m sues U for infringement.
Does U 9ave a 1#20e2 defense:
 Ues7 if Stan /as first to invent. Stan<s patent is prior art under 1#20e2 from its
filing date. G9m can still /in7 but onl* if it can prove it invented before Stan<s
filing date.
 Ao do t9is7 G9m files >s/earing be9ind? affidavit under Rule 1317 to claim 9is
actual invention date /as earlier 09ere7 before Stan<s filing2
o 22 89at is G9m<s invention /as not identical to t9at disclosed in Stan but onl* obvious in
lig9t of it:
 Still 9ave a 1#20e2 claim7 as Stan<s patent can still be used as prior art. 1#20e2
>secret prior art? can be used in obviousness anal*sis.
o 32 89at if G9m<s patent issued before Stan<s:
 date of issuance irrelevant for 1#20e2 inDuir*. 89at matters are i2 applicant<s
invention date; and ii2 prior art<s filing date.
D. *+,-!./ Deri7ation !ro# Anot2er
, 8 *+,-!./ 5A person s2all (e entitled to a patent unless/ 2e did not 2i#sel! in7ent t2e su(<ect
#atter6
o i.e.7 can<t steal inventions from anot9er.
o eg7 Campbell 06t9 Cir. 1"$2 H Vimmerman an emplo*ee of Campbell7 leaves to start
o/n compan*. Campbell patents invention and sues.
 Vimmerman claims 9e invented it and told Campbell 9o/ to ma%e it. 4at9er
corroborates stor* 0satisf*ing Barbed "ire corroboration reD2. Campbell<s
counter stor* not credible  patent invalidated under 1#60f2.
, 'gawam 0)S 1!6"2 H mere assistance is not derivation.
o assistance not deri7ation unless it i. enco#passes all ele#ents o! in7entionM ii. is
!ull& ena(lin".
o t9us7 9elp from ''s not enoug9 for derivation /9en inventor put all t9ese contributions
toget9er.
, +urdens&
o *. patent presu#ed 7alid  c2allen"e re:uires 5clear and con7incin" e7idence6
 cf. PAG interference proceedings. Po presumption of validit*  preponderance
of t9e evidence standard.
o ,. Corro(oration Rule -"arbed Wire.& 4ed. Cir. reDuires corroboration to invalidate
patent. 8itness testimon*7 alone7 not enoug9.
, 1 ,
, E#plo&ee In7entors/
o default is t9at patentee is inventor7 even if conceived during emplo*ment.
o +)A& 'R can get rig9ts if&
 *. e@press contract clause re:uirin" assi"n#ent  ER "ets in7ention
 ,. EE speci!icall& 2ired or assi"ned to in7ent  i#plied contract and ER
"ets in7ention
 9. EE uses ER resources to in7ent  EE "ets patent (ut ER "ets 5s2op
ri"2t6 0none(clusive7 nontransferable ro*alt*,free license to use2
, ?oint In7entors
o reDuires t9at inventors /or% Eointl* and bot9 contribute to t9e conception of t9e
invention.
, Correction o! O1ners2ip
o true inventor can sue not to invalidate anot9er patent7 but to correct t9e name. +ut
doesn<t appl* 9ere as
o 1 116 0during patent prosecution2& misEoinder and nonEoinder correctable onl* if no
deception
 >/e forgot to include L? t*pe of provision
o 1 2$6 0applies after issuance2&
 misEoinder can be corrected even if t9ere /as no deception7 +)A
 nonEoinder can be corrected onl* if no deception b* t9e true inventor
o 'g7 Campbell&
 Campbell 0misEoinder2 can be gotten rid of7 even t9oug9 t9ere /as deception
 Vimmerman 0nonEoinder2 correctable as 9e didn<t deceive
E. *+,-"./ Priorit&
, 8 *+,-". 5No patent i!3 anot2er in7entor esta(lis2es t2at/
o -*. in an interference proceeding& OaP (e!ore suc2 personIs in7ention3 t2e in7ention
1as O(P #ade (& t2at in7entor3 and OcP not a(andoned3 suppressed3 or concealed
 t9e >first to invent? rule
o -,. 1#20g2 prior art. OaP (e!ore suc2 personIs in7ention3 t2e in7ention 1as O(P #ade
(& is t2is countr& (& anot2er in7entor3 12o 2as OcP not a(andoned3 suppressed3 or
concealed t2e in7ention
 1#20g2 as a source of prior art7 similar to 1#20a2.
o -9. in deter#inin" priorit&3 consider/
 t9e respective dates of conception and reduction to practice7 and
 t9e reasonable diligence of t9e one /9o /as first to conceive and last to reduce
to practice7 from a time prior to conception b* t9e ot9er.
, T2e 5Rules6/
o *. I! an in7entor (ot2 *st to concei7e and *st to reduce to practice3 t2e& "et priorit&.
 unless >abandon7 suppress or conceal? 0Rule 32
 W1 C W2 C W1 RAP W2 RAP  1 /ins
o ,. *st to concei7e (ut ,nd to reduce to practice 1ins onl& i! reasona(l& dili"ent in
reducin" to practice
 diligence reDuired onl* b3/ 2d part*<s conception and 1st part*<s RAP
 W1 C W2 C W2 RAP W1 RAP
o ,,,,,,,,,diligence reD.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 if diligent7 1 /ins. If not7 2 /ins.
, 1! ,
o 9. I!3 a!ter reduction to practice3 in7ention is 5a(andoned3 suppressed3 or
concealed36 it doesnIt count and ot2er in7entor 1ins.
 W1 C W1 RAP W2 C W2 RAP
o 1 abandons,,,,,,,,,,,,
 2 /ins.
, $asic Concepts/
o *. conception
 a >definite and permanent idea of t9e complete invention? 0 Barbacid 2
• i2 all elements reDuired
• ii2 clearl* defined enoug9 so t9at P-GSIA5 could reduce to practice
/it9out undue e(perimentation
 an enablement,li%e standard
o ,. reduction to practice ORTPP
 reDuire RAP in addition to conception to prevent fraud7 problems of proof7
encourage disclosure7 /or%ing to/ard actuali@ation.
 eit9er&
• 12 actual RAP
o i2 build invention /it9 all limitations of t9e claim 0 &aton 2
o ii2 recogni@e t9at it /or%ed
 eg7 &stee $auder H no RAP as inventors /ill still /aiting
on test results7 didn<t reali@e it /or%ed
• 22 constructive RAP N filing of a valid patent application
o allo/ t9is so as to not disfavor small inventors
o must meet utilit*7 enablement7 etc.
o 9. 5dili"ence6
 onl* relevant in situation /9ere 1st to conceive not t9e first to RAP
 diligence N bet/een ot9er<s conception and *our RAP 0t9e >critical period?27 9ave
to put reasonable efforts into reduction to practice 0 Barbacid 2
• occasionall* >valid e(cuses? Me(treme povert*7 illness7 etc.Mcan
forgive lac% of diligence.
 a reasonableness standard&
• eg7 Bro(n H si( da*s off in t9e >critical? period 0from 2d conception to
1st<s RAP2 is not enoug9 for lac% of diligence.
o L. a(andon#ent3 suppression3 conceal#ent
 see belo/
, Polic*
o t1o co#petin" polices/
 *. !airness to 5!irst to concei7e6
• especiall* concerned about >small inventors?
• but& creates difficult problems of proof7 ris% of fraud.
 ,. incenti7e to !ile3 and disclose to pu(lic3 as soon as possi(le
• most ot9er countries favor t9is  file to file rules.
o continuum of possible priorit* rules from conception to filing. )S dra/s line in middle7
but could&
 conception line /ould create greater ris% of fraud
 RAP line mig9t be unfair to first to conceive7 disadvantage small inventors
 first to file 9as muc9 to be said for it&
, 1" ,
• 12 uniformit* /it9 rest of t9e /orld
• 22 prevent difficult problems of proof7
• 32 resources& interference proceedings are costl*
• 42 small inventors aren<t 9elped muc9 0interference too e(pensive27
empiricall* not too relevant in patent.
• but& fairness to small inventor7 first to invent.
, Inter!erence E7identiar& Rules
o "rown v. "arba!id H Corro(oration Rule
 facts& parties file for same invention one mont9 apart. Interference proceeding
initiated. Ounior uses attempts to prove earlier invention and RAP.
 Rule*/ <unior part& -,d to !ile. 2as (urden in inter!erence proceedin"s3 (ut
onl& preponderance o! t2e e7idence
• any part* claiming priorit* date earlier t9an filing 9as similar burden.
• if Eunior part* does not file until after senior patent is publis9ed7 burden
raises to >clear and convincing?
• contrast& once patent issues7 9as presumption of validit* and need >clear
and convincing evidence?
o deference to PAG e(pertise.
 Rule,/ 5independent e7idence6 re:uired to corro(orate in7entorIs testi#on&
re/ conception3 RTP3 dili"ence.
• lab noteboo% reEected as can<t use o/n noteboo%s to corroborate o/n
testimon*. >Independent evidence? reDuired 0eg7 if t9e* /ere /itnessed
b* someone else2.
• Inventor<s testimon* allo/ed as corroborated b* colleague<s testimon*.
, A(andon#ent3 'uppression3 Conceal#ent OA'CP
o Rm%& diligence applies bet/een conception and reduction to practice. 5SC onl* applies
after RAP.
 diligence is more demandingMcontinuous efforts. Ao avoid 5SC7 need onl*
/or% to/ard patent /it9out extreme dela*.
 e.g.7 dela* in commerciali@ation due to lac% of funds
• ma* constitute lac% of diligence as could al/a*s get a patent
0constructive reduction to practice2
• +ut& /on<t constitute abandonment. Po intentionalit*. are ma%ing
reasonable efforts.
o Intent to A(andon/
 ReDuired7 but can be inferred from unreasonable dela* 0 #eeler v. -iller 2
o '(amples&
 Peeler v. Miller ; =iller able to prove earlier conception and RAP7 but compan*<s
patent attorne* inapt and dela*s 4 *ears in filing application
• court finds 5SC7 9olding intent is presumed from an unreasonable dela*.
 Palik ; resumed efforts7 if before ot9er parties filing7 can defeat 5SC
• Q*& 431 RAP 0abandoned2 13$ 0resume2 633# 0file2
• Q,& 33$ 0file2
• 1 /ins7 as resumed efforts defeat abandonment
o 'ecret Use 7. 5Cidden Pu(lic Use6 ; former is 5SC7 latter is not
 Gillman H %eeping invention as trade secret t*picall* considered 5SC. A9us7 *ou
%eep trade secrets at our peril t9at independent inventor /ill later ta%e as patent.
, 2# ,
• 9ere7 /9en selling product but %eeping patentable mac9ine secret7
constitutes 5SC if no steps ta%en to patent.
 > noninforming? public use or >9idden public use? not 5SC
• eg7 .unlop H invention7 golf balls7 sold to public7 not intentional %ept as
secret7 Eust difficult to reverse engineer. Pot considered 5SC.
• eg27 S5+R' reservation s*stem in $oc'(ood.
 polic*&
• /ant to encourage patent disclosure7 discourage trade secrets. Can<t
e(tend term b* %eeping as secret as long as possible and t9en patenting.
• Rm%& 3$ )SC
, 1 1#20g2 Prior 5rt
o provides anot9er source of prior art& if invention made in t9e )S and not abandoned7
consider prior art.
 must be i2 conceived and RAP7 ii2 in )S7 iii2 not abandoned.
o eg7 .o( Chemical v. /stro-0alcour H invention made 2 *ears before a source of prior art.
-eld not enoug9 of a dela* for abandonment.
o /9* 1#20g2 doesn<t >s/allo/? 1#20a2 rules&
 onl* applies to invention made in 1). 1#20a2 patents and publication can be
an*/9ere.
 publication doesn<t reDuire RAP7 /9ereas 1#20g2 does.
, Rule *9* 5'1earin" $e2ind6 H allo/s inventor to claim earlier date of invention during
prosecution
o doesn<t appl* in interferences7 /9ic9 instead rel* on t9e evidence presented t9erein.
o cannot be used to avoid statutor* bar 0/9ic9 do not depend on date of invention2
o need not prove utilit* 9ad been found 0In re -oore2
o need not be corroborated7 but must be detailed.
). 'TATUTOR% $AR'
Co#parison/ No7elt& & 'tat. $ars
No7elt& -*+,-a.3 -e.3 -".. 'tatutor& $ars -*+,-(.3 -c.3 -d.
Aiming +efore Invention +3/ invention and 4iling date.
Relevant 5ctivities +*: A9ird Parties Gnl* Inventor or A9ird Parties
Polic& Onl& patent i! trul& ne1 Pro#ote earl& !ilin"
A. *+,-(./ Pu(lis23 or Pu(lic Use or 'ale Outside 5Grace Period6
, $asic Rules
o 8 *+,-(. No patent i!/
 -*. R * &ear prior to application3 t2e in7ention is patented or des!ribed in a
printed pu(lication an&12ere
 -,. R * &ear prior to application3 t2e in7ention is 5in pu(lic use6 or 5on sale6
in t2is countr&
o ter#inolo"&/
 *+,-(. 5"race period6 = inventor 9as one *ear after publication7 patenting7
public use or sale before filing7 else triggers statutor* bar.
 5critical date6 N one *ear prior to date of filing.
, Polic*& encourage earl* filing. 5 virtue because&
, 21 ,
o *. pu(lic reliance H don<t ta%e out of public domain
o ,. earlier disclosure
o 9. a7oids de !acto ter# e@tension
o +)A& 9ave a >grace period? as
 12 give time to determine if patent /ort9 t9e time and effort
 22 give time for application to be prepared.
 32 don<t discourage ot9er earlier disclosure
• academics7 eg7 /ant to be able to get publications out Duic%l*7 get patents
later. Bood to allo/ t9is.
 42 allo/ small inventors time to get t9eir act toget9er.
o Penno!k v. 0ialoge 0)S 1!2"2 0Stor*7 O.2 H classic statement of statutor* bar policies.
 9eld& seven *ears of commerciali@ation bars inventor from later pursuing patent.
• invention goes into t9e public domain b* t9is point.
• invention onl* gives inventor an inchoate rig9t& 9ave to act or lose it.
• can<t 9ave it bot9 /a*s& %eep as secret7 later patent.
 a debate bet/een .oc%ean vie/ 0P<s argument H it<s mine unless I abandon it2
and utilitarian vie/ 0to get benefit7 9ave to act /it9in la/2
, 5Pu(lications6
o same rules as 1#20a2 appl* as /9at counts as publication. )ee supra IF.+.
, 5Pu(lic Use6/ 89en is use >public? enoug9 to trigger 1#20b2 bar:
o )gbert v. Lippmann 01!!12
 facts& inventor ma%es corset steel t9at does not brea%. =a%es for fiancX7 /9o
/ears t9em7 s9o/s to a fe/ friends. Inventor also told a friend. A9ese uses
9appen over a long period of time& invention 1!$$7 patent 1!3.
 9eld use is >public? for 1#20b2 as&
• 12 no restrictions 0confidentialit* agreements2 on people t9e* told
• 22 eDuit*& sat out t9eir rig9ts for a long time 02# *ears2
• 32 >/resting out of public domain? H 9ad started to be /idel* used.
• 42 uses not e(perimental.
o Mole!lon Resear!h Corp. 04ed. Cir. 1"!62 H Rubi%<s Cube case.
 facts& original inventor conceived it in 1"$7 reduces to practice in 1"627 s9o/s
to a fe/ friends. 1"6"& +oss notices it7 get 9im to assigns 9is rig9ts to
=oleculon7 /9o tries to mar%et it to7 get patent a *ear later.
 9eld& uses not >public? for 1#20b27 despite no confidentialit* agreement7 as
inventor never let t9e invention leave >9is control? 0%eep possession of item2
• lesser amount of time7 not a >troll? t*pe case.
 Compare Beachcomber2s Int2l 0fed. Cir. 1""42 H s9o/ing invention to a lot of
people at a part* s9o/n to be a public use.
• testimon* from guests t9at t9ere /as no e(press or implied restriction of
t9eir use7 absent in -oleculon.
, 5On sale6
o P-a-- 0)S 1""!2 , inventor made detailed dra/ings7 s9o/ed AI7 and too% orders before
t9e critical date7 but 9adn<t actuall* made t9e invention 0RAP2
 P-a-- test !or 5on sale6. On sale i!/
• *. product is t2e su(<ect o! 5a co##ercial o!!er !or sale36 AND
• ,. t2e in7ention is 5read& !or patentin"6
, 22 ,
o > read* for patenting? N i2 reduction to practice; GR ii2 enabling
dra/ings or descriptions; IGR iii2 per9aps ot9er /a*s.J
o ma%es sense& once invention is read* for patenting7 /e /ant to
incentivi@e filing.
 9ere7 bar applies because Pfaff<s dra/ings full* disclosed and enabled t9e
invention7 t9us it /as >read* for patenting?
 compare&
• district court& 9eld t9at invention couldn<t be >on sale? for 1#20b2 unless
reduced to practice. A9us no bar.
o RAP a clear line7 but not grounded in t9e te(t.
• 4ed Cir. >totalit* of t9e circumstances? test 9eld invention /as
>substantiall*? complete before critical date7 and bar applied.
o Court reEects t9is as too indefinite.
 Rm%s re& >read* for patenting?&
• a2 RAP not necessar* 3 enablement is necessar*
• b2 second prong is parallel to 1#20g2& eit9er actual RAP7 or /as able to
constructivel* RAP 0file a patent2
o >read* for patenting? a %ind of potential constructive reduction
o '(amples& /9en does >on sale? cloc% begin running:
 12 Inventors invents springless /idgets at time 5 0>invents? N conceives and
read* to patent2. Gffers to sell at time +7 offer accepted at time C.
• Aime +.
 22 Inventor invents springless /idgets at time 5. Inventor ma%es a general offer
for /idgets at time +7 but delivers springless /idgets at time C.
• Aime C. + doesn<t count as springless /idgets /eren<t put on sale. A9us
sale doesn<t occur until deliver*.
• result ma%e sense from a polic* perspective& Eust t9e general offer
doesn<t e(tend t9e patent period. Can<t c9ange monopol* price7
commercial benefits don<t accrue at time +.
 32 Inventor ma%es specific offer at Aime 57 even t9oug9 9as not invented t9em
*et. Invents at time +. Performs at time C.
• Invention on sale at time +. Straig9tfor/ard application on #faff.
• A9oug9 commercial benefits accrue at 57 but can<t start cloc% until 9e
9as t9e abilit* to patent. A9us + ma%es t9e most sense.
o Mahrkar v. #mpra H >s9am sale? doesn<t trigger statutor* bar.
 internal sale 9ere made before invention /as read* Eust to e(tend a license. Pot a
>real commerciali@ation7? so s9ould fail 1st prong of #faff
o 'bbot H 3rd part* sale made after invention reduced to practice7 but /asn<t a/are t9e*
/ere selling it.
 9eld& >on sale? bar applies for >una/are sale?
• public alread* getting benefit.
• cf. >accidental anticipation? 0)eaborg2 0public not benefiting7 doesn<t
count2 v. >in9erent anticipation? 0)chering2 0public getting benefit7 does
count2
 case seems more near to )chering.
, T2ird Part& Acti7ities
o Rm%& 1#20b2 bar applies to bot9 applicant and t9ird parties.
, 23 ,
o "a*ter #nt/l H independent inventors use invention in lab more t9an a *ear before
applicant<s filing
 9eld& use is >public? 0since lab open7 no secrec*27 and 1#20b2 bar applies to t9ird
part* uses7 even if inventor did not %no/ about t9ese.
 Dissent& s9ouldn<t create t9is ne/ t*pe of >secret prior art?
• since inventor could not 9ave %no/n about t9ese uses7 /on<t encourage
filing.
• but& %no/ing t9is possibilit* e(ists still encourages prompt filing.
o WL Gore 04ed. Cir. 1"!32 H secret 3rd part* sales don<t trigger 1#20b2 bar
 5ctivities before critical date&
• A9ird part* develops in Pe/ Vealand
o doesn<t count as not >in t9e )S?
• A9ird part* offers to sell to )S corp.7 clearl* reDuires confidentialit*7
not9ing comes of it.
o 9eld& t9is sale and use doesn<t trigger 1#20b2 bar as not >public?
 clear t9at if t9e inventor 9ad made t9is sale7 1#20b2 >public sale? /ould be
triggered under #faff test.
• t9us case la/ more forgiving /it9 1#20b2 bars regarding t9ird part*
activities.
, T2ree t&pes o! 5pu(lic6 under *+,-a. and *+,-(.
*+,-a. >publicl* used b* ot9ers? Public )se N non,secret7 in
ordinar* course of business
0!osaire2
Arade Secret not public
*+,-(. >public use? IapplicantJ Pon,secret7 non,informing use7
trade secret uses all >public?
*+,-(. >public use? I3rd part*J Same as above7 but commercial
trade secret not public 0"$ ore3
$oc'(ood2
Rm%& '(perimental )se '(ception to Statutor* +ar
, Rm%& t9is is t9e >e(perimental use? e(ception to t9e statutory bar under 1#20b27 not to be
confused /it9 t9e e(perimental use defense to infringement.
, General rules/ E@peri#entation needed to reduce t2e in7ention to practice is not 5pu(lic
use6 or 5sale6 tri""erin" *+,-(. -City o- )li1abeth.
o 12 applies to bot9 use and sales 0 -anville )ales 2
 +)A& must e(ercise control over t9e invention 0 $ough 2
o 22 activities must concern t9e development of the invention
 eg7 not mar%eting 0In re )mith2
o 32 no e(perimental use after invention been reduced to practice.
 but RAP includes %no/ing t9at it /or%s
o 42 a Duestion of la/.
, '(amples
o City o- )li1abeth 0)S 1!2 H invention is improved pavement. Ao test and perfect
invention7 inventor la*s pavement on road used b* public. =onitors t9e results
continuousl*
 9eld& e(perimental use doesn<t trigger #ennoc' bar. -ere7 inventor maintained
control over t9e invention7 use necessar* to perfect and test
, 24 ,
o Manville Sales 04ed. Cir. 1""#2 H sale to rest stop to test lig9tening rod. Previous tr*
didn<t /or%. .ater tr* /or%s7 and 9e applies for patent.
 9eld& t9is is an >e(perimental sale? t9at doesn<t trigger 1#20b2
 under #faff7 get same result b* arguing t9at it is not >read* for patenting? until
t9e inventor reali@es it /or%s 0t9e &stee $auder principle2
o Logh 04ed. Cir. 1""62 H small inventor builds ne/ assembl* for boat motors7 gives
a/a* 6 to ot9ers to see if t9e* /or%.
 9eld& e(perimental use does not appl* /9en inventor fails to e(ercise control
over t9e invention.
• mig9t be different if inventor %eep c9ec%ing in to see 9o/ t9e* /ere
/or%ing.
 controversial as& 12 didn<t defer to trial factfinding7 22 small inventor deserves
more deference7 as less resources to test.
o #n re Smith H product tested b* giving samples to consumers7 /9o fill out Duestionnaires
 9eld& e(perimental use must be aimed at reduction to practice7 not mar%et testing
0gauging demand for product2
$. *+,-c. & -d. -Rarel& Used.
, 8 *+,-c. ; bar if inventor 9as >abandoned? t9e invention
o rarel* used since 1#20b2 /ill cover *ou if its been more t9an a *ear after a public use of
sale. -ard to argue abandonment /9en use less t9an a *ear old.
o possible situations&
 inventor invents7 doesn<t publicl* use or sell7 %eeps in basement and tries to
patent after 1# *ears
 inventor ma%es e(press statement of abandonment7 t9en reneges.
, 8 *+,-d. H bar if invention if invention first patented b* applicant in foreign countr* filed more
t9an 12 mont9s before )S filing.
o onl* reall* an issue if someone scre/s up& alread* 9ave strong incentive to patent /it9in
12 mont9s so as to get foreign priorit* date.
8 *+, 'u##ar& Ta(le
, No patent i!/
'ection *+, 8as invention& +*& In& +efore&
a Sno/n Gt9ers )S Date of invention
a )sed Gt9ers )S Date of invention
a Patented Gt9ers 5n*/9ere Date of invention
a Publis9ed Gt9ers 5n*/9ere Date of invention
b Patented or publis9ed 5n*one 5n*/9ere Y 1 *ear before filing
b Public )se 5n*one )S Y 1 *ear before filing
b Gn Sale 5n*one )S Y 1 *ear before filing
c 5bandoned 5pplicant +efore filing
d 4iled and Patented 5pplicant 4oreign nation Y 1 *ear before filing
e 5pplication publis9ed or
patent granted
Gt9ers )S 0or PCA2 4iled before invention
f Derived from 5not9er Gt9ers 5n*/9ere 5n* time
g In interference& made
and not 5SC
Gt9ers 5n*/9ere Date of invention
g =ade and not 5SC Gt9ers )S Date of invention
, 2$ ,
)I. NONO$)IOU'NE''
A. *+9 & $asic Graham In:uir&
, $asic Rules
o 8 *+9/ 55 patent ma* not be obtained ifKt9e differences bet/een t9e subEect matter
soug9t to be patent and t9e prior art are suc9 t9at t9e subEect matter as a /9ole /ould
9ave been obvious at t9e time t9e invention /as made to a P-GSIA5.
o Graham &est
 *. 9 !actual in:uiries/
• a. scope and content o! t2e prior art
• (. di!!erences (et1een prior art and clai#ed in7ention
• c. le7el o! sBill o! PCO'ITA
 ,. deter#ine 12et2er in7ention as a 12ole 1as o(7ious a ti#e o! in7ention
to PCOT'ITA
• focuses on tec9nical 0not economic2 value
 9. Also/ consider 5secondar& considerations6> o(<ecti7e indicia 0guard
against 9indsig9t bias2
• a. does prior art 5teac2 a1a&6 -'dams.D  increase nonobviousness
• (. co##ercial successD  increase nonobviousness
• c. lon" !elt (ut unsol7ed needD  increase nonobviousness
• d. !ailure o! ot2ersD  increase nonobviousness
 R#B/ nono(7iousness a constitutional re:uire#ent3 a :uestion o! la1
-Graham.
o KSR H a >common sense? approac9 to 37 reEecting rigid AS= met9od.
, Polic&& /9* reDuire obviousness at all:
o *. no need !or incenti7e to de7elop o(7ious inno7ations
 default is competition
 investment is minimal if invention obvious7 don<t need monopol* to recoup
o ,. (locBin" patents
 >proliferation of patents?  stifle innovation
 /9*& transaction costs3 search costs3 4hold out5 problems
o 9. #onopol& costs 1it2out :uid pro :uo social (ene!it3 disclosure
o L. protect 7alue o! ot2er patents
, Case .a/&
o 9istor*&
 Griginal patent act reDuired >sufficientl* useful and important?
• unclear /9et9er focus on economic vs. tec9nical importance.
 +otch'iss standard
 up to 1"$2& courts reDuire 9ig9 levels of obviousness
• eg7 Cuno H reDuires >flas9 of creative genius?
• /6# Tea H 9ave to pus9 bac% standards of science
  outcr* from patent bar7 adoption 1"$2 5ct 0current 1 1#32
• raham t9en establis9es meaning of 1#3
o ,ot!hkiss 0)S 1!$12 H issue /as /9et9er ma%ing door%nobs of ne/ material 0cla* and
porcelain2 patentable
 > no invention? /9en >no more s%ill t9an ordinar* mec9anic? needed
• simpl* a combination of old elements.
, 26 ,
• precursor of modern standard
 Dissent&
• enoug9 for >invention? if better and c9eaper t9an predecessor. 8ould
loo% more to economic t9an tec9nical value 0modern standard is on
technical7 not commercial7 nonobviousness2
o Graham 0)S 1"662&
 Nono(7iousness is a Constitutional re:uire#ent.
• invention must >promote Progress ofKuseful 5rts?
• constitutionali@es utilitarian vie/ of patents.
• focuses on tec9nical 0not economic2 value
 sets out 3,part test and >secondar* considerations? 0above2
 Nono(7iousness a :uestion o! la1.
• even t9oug9 based on underl*ing factual inDuiries
 interprets 1"$2 5ct as not significantl* c9anging la/ 0and couldn<t
constitutionall*27 enacting +otch'iss.
 as applied&
• Bra9am& ne/ patent7 reall* Eust a slig9t rearrangement of elements of
old patent7 /ould 9ave been obvious to P-GSIA5 in lig9t of old patent.
• Palmolive& >9old do/n cap? for spra* bottles obvious as simpl*
combines elements from t/o prior patents.
o 'dams H >/et batter*? invented. 8or%s li%e old batter*7 merel* /it9 different fluids7
-eld nonobvious.
 t9e 5teac2in" a1a&6 !actor/ 5dams found a /a* to ma%e it /or%7 despite t9e
fact t9at ever*one else didn<t t9in% it could be done.
 t9oug9 a combination of old elements7 t9e combination 9ad >une(pectedl*
advantageous benefits?  nonobvious.
$. KSR and 'u(tests !or O(7iousness
, KSR 0)S 2##2 H Invention7 a combination of adEustable gas pedal /it9 electronic sensor 9eld
obvious 0Eust old invention C ne/ sensor2. Supreme Court endorses3 reEects certain subtests of
obviousness&
o *. re<ects ed. Cir. T'M rules as 5too ri"id36 endorses 5co##on sense6 o(7iousness
approac2.
 4ed. Cir. 9ad used AS= test 0teac9ing7 suggestion7 motivation2 test for obvious&
to s9o/ obviousness7 must prove prior references AS= t9e invention
• rigid7 t9oug9 AS= could be implicit.
• pros of AS=& predictabilit*7 avoid 9indsig9t bias
 Supreme Court reEects t9is&
• too rigid7 unsupported b* te(t or precedent
• creates a 9ig9 evidentiar* burden.
• reflects sense t9at 9ig9er bar s9ould be imposed7 t9at t9ere are currentl*
>too man* patents?
o ,. adopts 5co#(ination rule6 -Skaraida./ patent 12ic2 5si#pl& rearran"es old
ele#ents36 &ieldin" predi!table results  o(7ious
 touc9stone is predictabilit*. If combination surprising7 t9en ma* 9ave discovered
somet9ing nonobvious.
 e(ception /9en prior art >teac9es a/a*? 0/dams2
, 2 ,
 most obviousness cases are >combination? cases
o 9. PCO'ITA 2as (ot2 reasona(le sBill in t2e area and reasonable !reativity. 5Not
an auto#aton6
 4actors to determine level of ordinar* s%ill 0 &nvironmental .esigns 2&
• 12 education of inventor3 people in field; 22 t*pes of problem
encountered in art; 32 prior art; 42 rapidit* /it9 /9ic9 inventions are
made; $2 sop9istication of t9e tec9nolog*;
• ot9er potential factors& amount of e(perimentation7 cost of
e(perimentation7 maturit* of t9e field; difficult* of t9e problems; routine
tec9niDues and approac9es
o L. 5o(7ious to tr&6 test appropriate in so#e cases
 eg7 /9en t9ere are a limited number of possibilities7 and inventor simpl* tests
t9em all.
 but& if >obvious to tr*? e(periment *ields une(pected results7 s9ould probabl* be
able to get patent 0but see #fi%er2.
• /ant to encourage t9is %ind of e(perimentation7 t9oroug9ness.
, Post2KSR cases
o 4ed. Cir. appears to be appl*ing a 9ig9er obviousness t9res9old.
o Leap-rog case H invention /as >interactive learning device&? to 9elp %ids read
p9oneticall*. .i%e *)!7 Eust old tec9nolog* updated in lig9t of modern electronics.
-eld obvious.
o 3obvios to try4 trio& divisionsMcases bot9 /a*sMand strong dissents in 4ed. Cir.
 #fi%er H 9eld obvious7 even in unpredictable p9armaceutical art7 as t9is /as Eust
>routine testing?. Gbvious to tr* /it9 routine options  obvious
 Ta'eda H not obvious. Po finite number of t9ings to test. S%ill in finding /9ic9
of t9e options to tr*. A9us >obvious to tr*? /it9 man* options is nonobvious.
C. 5'econdar& Considerations6 ; O(<ecti7e Indicia
, Beneral&
o Considerations/
 *. co##ercial success
• must be >ne(us? bet/een specific innovation and success 0 +ybridtech 2
 ,. !ailure o! ot2ers
 9. lon" !elt (ut unsol7ed needs
 L. teac2in" a1a&
o an atte#pt to "et at reason !or t2e dela&S12& no one 2ad &et in7ented an alle"edl&
5o(7ious6 in7entionS1as due to/ *. e@o"enous !actors 0and so is obvious2M or ,.
2indsi"2t (ias 0and so it not reall* obvious2
 eg7 in *)!7 e(ogenous development 0t9e sensor2 reason for t9e dela*.
o ,dar& Considerations can count !or (ot2 o(7iousness and nono(7iousness -KSR.
o unclear /9et9er mandator* considerations or not
, ,ybridte!h 04ed. Cir. 2##62 H invention an >immunoassa*? test for antigens. Pioneer invention
discovered basic idea7 applicant innovation /as to fins 9ig9 affinit* antibod* t9at /or%ed /ell&
more accurate7 faster. '(amine obEective indicia&
o 12 commercial success
 test ver* successful7 but unclear /9et9er t9is due to invention7 or mar%eting7
ot9er 0non,patented2 elements of t9e product.
, 2! ,
• 4ed. Cir. notes 3 *ear dela* bet/een materials and success7 seems to
t9in% it<s due to t9e invention
 #ust 2a7e 5ne@us6 (et1een success and in7ention to count
o 22 failure of ot9ers H not in issue
o 32 long felt but unsolved need
 e(pert /itness testified test /as surprisingl* and particularl* effective
o 42 teac9ing a/a* H not in issue
D. 5'cope and Content o! t2e Prior Art6 = 1>in *+, and 5Analo"ous6
, cf. prior art considered for anticipation7 statutor* bars
o an*t9ing t9at falls /it9in 1#2 counts. Po restrictions t9at it be t9e same field or problem.
, Rules/
o Winslow 5ta(leau6 = presumption t9at inventor %no/s7 as 9as in mind7 all t9e
reasonabl* pertinent prior art.
 it is against t9is bac%ground t9at obviousness is assessed.
o an&t2in" t2at :uali!ies as prior art under *+, can (e considered in o(7iousness.
Can<t be considered if outside 1#2.
 includes 1#20e2 >secret prior art? 0+a%eltine !esearch2
 1#20g2 art 0also secret sometimes2 0In re Bass2
 1#20f2 prior art 0derivation2 07dd%on2
 1#20b2 art 0In re 8oster2
o #n re Wood test/ 5scope and content o! prior art6 !or 8 *+9 = art 1it2in *+, AND
5analo"ous6. 5Analo"ous6=
 *. all art in t2e sa#e !ield o! endea7or7 regardless of t9e problem.
 ,. prior art outside t2e !ield (ut still 3reasonably pertinent4 to t2e particular
pro(le# (ein" sol7ed.
o Eoint inventor rule&
 general 1#2 rule if t9at *ou can<t anticipate *ourself. Gnl* /orr* about stat bars.
 rule e(tends to groups of co,inventors.
• t9us7 05C+CC2 can<t anticipate 05C+CC2
• +)A 05C+CC2 can anticipate 05C+2.
 +)A& e(ception in obvious anal*sis *+9-c./
• 5C+CC cannot ma%e obvious 5C+ 0or even DC'C4 at same corporation2
so long as ''s obligated to assign inventions to corporation.
, '(amples and Case la/
o Winslow 0CCP5 1"662 , famous description of inventor in room /it9 all t9e pertinent
prior art on t9e /all. Inventor 9as a problem7 loo%s around t9e room for /a*s to solve it.
 t9is >tableau? seems to reDuire a super,9uman inventor7 but inDuir* is demanding
as /ant to encourage researc9 into prior art and avoid /asteful re,invention.
o 1#20f2 prior art e(ample& 5 steals ideas from +. Aries to patent not same invention7 but
obvious variation.
 5 can<t patent as 1#20f2 counts in obviousness
 but + can patent it7 not long as no statutor* bar.
 C independentl* invents& can<t patent until 9e /as first.
o #n re Clay H application of In !e "ood test.
 invention for oil storing process alleged obvious in lig9t of oil e(traction patent.
 9eld t9at t9ese are not t9e same >field of endeavor7? nor t9e same problem 
prior patent not considered in obvious anal*sis.
, 2" ,
Anticipation3 O(7iousness and 'tat. $ars Co#pared
No7elt& 'tat. $ars O(7iousness
Test Identit* of all
limitations
Identit* of all
limitations
>as a /9ole? obvious to
P-GSIA5
Q o! re!erences 1 1 Combinations
'ections o! *+, 0a27 0e27 0f27 0g2 0b27 0c27 0d2 5ll
ield o! prior art 5n* 5n* >analogous art?
,dar& indicia Pot relevant Pot relevant -ig9l* relevant
)II. PATENTA$LE 'U$?ECT MATTER
A. Polic& & 'ources o! Aut2orit&
, 89at %ind of inventions can be patented: 9 'ources o! Guidance/
o *. Constitution
 5To pro#ote t2e Pro"ress o! 'cience and use!ul Arts3 (& securin" !or li#ited
Ti#es to Aut2ors and In7entors t2e e@clusi7e Ri"2t to t2eir respecti7e
Writin"s and Disco7eries6
• >Science? 0i.e.7 >learning?2 corresponds to cop*rig9t.
• >useful 5rts? corresponds to patent.
 >useful 5rts?  somet9ing made b* 9umans 0i.e.7 not discovered2.
• but it also sa*s t9eir >discoveries?
• can argue >useful 5rts? means somet9ing li%e >tec9nolog*?
o ,. 'tatutes
 8 *+* ; >an* ne/ process3 #ac2ine3 #anu!acture3 co#position o! #atter Iis
patentableJ?
 8 *++ ;
• > invention? N invention or discover*.
• > process? N art7 met9od7 ne/ use of %no/n process mac9ine7
composition of matter
 generall* prett* inconclusive
o 9. TRIP' o(li"ations
 TRIP' 8 ,E/ >patents? must be available in all fields of tec9nolog*?
 +)A& members can e(clude&
• >/9en necessar* to protect ordre public or moralit*?
o prett* broad room
• met9ods for treatment of 9umans Imedical patentsJ
• plants and animals ot9er t9an microorganisms.
, Policies o! Patenta(le 'u(<ect Matter
o *. et2ics> #oralit& H often an issue in biotec9nolog* patents 0eg7 geneticall* engineered
bacterium7 mice2
o ,. incenti7es H do t9e particular area need t9e patent incentive to innovate: 8ill t9e*
innovate enoug9 on t9eir o/n:
 eg7 t9e patenting of soft/are is controversialMma* do more 9arm 0get in t9e
/a*2 t9an good
 eg7 business met9od patents.
o 9. a7oid "i7in" too (road a #onopol& H eg7 pro9ibition on natural la/ and abstract
ideas. =a* ultimatel* stifle follo/,on innovation.
, 3# ,
o L. 2u#an autono#& H eg7 concerns about patenting a t9oug9t process or natural
movement
 eg7 patents on sports moves.
o K. !reedo# o! t2ou"2t H eg7 algorit9m pro9ibitions.
o H. preser7e pu(lic do#ain H eg7 pro9ibitions on e(isting >products of nature?
$. 5La1s o! Nature3 P2&sical P2eno#ena -'cienti!ic Principles.3 & A(stract Ideas6
, (/Reilly v. Morse 0)S 1!$42 H no patent on an a(stract idea or scienti!ic principle
o =orse patents telegrap9. .ast claim claims more t9an particular mac9iner*7 but
seemingl* t9e idea of electronic communication.
 >I do not intend to limit m*self to specific mac9iner*7 IinsteadJ t9e >use of
electro,magnetism7 9o/ever developed for printing intelligible c9aractersKat
an* distanceKIt9e idea of /9ic9J I claim to be t9e first inventor or discoverer.?
o court reEects as >too broad?. Could also 9ave reEected on&
 novelt* 0ot9ers 9ad done it27 enablement7 /ritten description.
o reflects concern of stifling follo/,on invention.
o Dissent& if =orse trul* first7 9e s9ould get it. .ater inventors in area can get
improvement patents7 so concern for follo/,on innovation overblo/n.
, &he &elephone Cases 0)S 1"!!2 H !an clai# applications o! principles3 i! tied to particular
#ac2ines and ot9er reDuirements met.
o claim&
 >t9e met9od and apparatus for transmitting sounds telegrap9icall*7 as 9erein
described7 b* Itransforming electrical undulationsKinto sound as set fort9.
0using modulated continuous current2J?
o 5llo/ed as tied to t9e particular met9od of transmission 9e 9as created. Pot claiming
t9e principle itself.
, see also& application to soft/are7 infra FI.D.
C. Products o! Nature & Li7in" T2in"s
I. .iving A9ings
, 0iamond v. Chakrabarty 0)S 1"!#2 H patent claimed on a man,made bacterium.
o *. can patent 5an&t2in" under t2e sun t2at is #ade (& #anSincludin" li7in" t2in"s.
 court vie/s case as narro/ one of statutor* construction. Relies broad nature of
statute<s language 04any process7 mac9ine7 manufacture7 composition of
matterK?2
• ignores implicit preemption of Plant protection act. 4act t9at intended
meaning of >composition of matter? 0c9emicals2 and >manufacture?
0mec9anical2 don<t include life. Dissent on t9ese grounds.
 bacterium /ouldn<t be patentable if a >product of nature7? but t9ese are man,
made.
 case critical for emerging biotec9nolog* industr*
o ,. li#it/ no patent on 5la1s o! nature3 p2&sical p2eno#ena3 or a(stract ideas6
 eg7 4 Nma; a naturall*,occurring substance; electronic communication eac9 not
patentable.
o i! 5#an (& #an6 F not 1>in li#its  patenta(le.
II. Products of Pature
, Parke20avis 0.earned -and7 1"122 H invention claimed is purified form of adrenaline
, 31 ,
o 2eld/ patents allo1ed on pri-ied natural su(stances. Not a 5product o! nature6 i!
#an4#ade isolation3 puri!ication #aBe it 5!or e7er& practical purpose a ne1 t2in"6
 eg7 modern patents on DP5 seDuences al/a*s in purified form.
o claims base form and salt form >practicall* free from inert and associated gland,tissue? in
>stable and concentrated form?
 t9ese limitations %e*7 as distinguis9 substance from naturall*,occurring form of
adrenaline 0in our bodies2
o purification made it >for ever* practical purpose a ne/ t9ing commerciall* and
t9erapeuticall*?
 blends utilit* into subEect mater
 polic*& /ant to preserve incentive for t9ese t*pe of useful advances.
• process patent not enoug97 as muc9 9arder to enforce.
, polic&/
o reasons not to allo/ patents on products of nature&
 autonom* 0infringing b* living:2
 alread* e(isted 0/ould ta%e out of public domain2
 a >discover*?7 not an invention
o counter& preserve incentive to discover /9at is ne/ and useful7 even if natural.
o DP5 patents&
 could argue t9at unli%e adrenaline7 value is in information7 not purit*7 and so not
reall* a >ne/ t9ing?
 ma* be >obvious to tr*? once t9e first purification is done. *)!.
o some find cultural bias7 in t9at p9arma gets patent7 but patents on traditional medicines
pro9ibited.
, $nk "ros 0)S 1"4!2 H invention is novel and useful combination of naturall*,occurring bacteria
09e figured out a /a* to do t9is so t9at t9e* /ould not in9ibit eac9 ot9er2 used to fi( nitrogen in
plants.
o 2eld/ no 5in7ention6 in co#(ination o! naturall&4occurrin" products.
o 9ard to distinguis9 from&
 #ar'e-.avis H purification difference. A9oug9 could argue t9at t9is advance7 as
so useful7 /as >for all purposes a ne/ t9ing?
 Cha'rabarty H t9oug9 bacteria 9ere man,made7 inventiveness is arguabl* t9e
same. Seems unfair to let difference 9inge on 9o/ tec9nical t9e transformation
/as 0putting plasmids into bacteria7 versus combining multiple strains in non,
obvious /a*:2
D. Al"orit2#s & 'o!t1are
, Polic&/
o soft/are patents initiall* faced resistance as argued t9e* /ere >abstract ideas?
o /9* /e ma* not /ant patents on soft/are&
 12 incentive not needed& industr* 9as lo/ investment costs
• strong net(or' effects advantage firs mover
 22 too man* >overlapping patents?
• a big target of current patent reform
 32 overlap /it9 cop*rig9t
 42 too fast,moving for 2# *ear terms
 $2 norms of industr* in conflict& open source7 facilitates follo/,on innovation.
 62 Concerns of patenting >t9oug9ts? 0soft/are Eust a series of instructions2
, 32 ,
, earlier resistance&
o "enson 0)S 1"22 H invention claimed is met9od for converting binar* coded decimals
into pure binar* numbers.
 2eld/ canIt patent an al"orit2# or #at2e#atical principle3 alone3 as itIs <ust
an 5a(stract idea6> series o! 5#ental steps6
• t9oug9 claims arguabl* limit t9emselves to t9is process as done b* a
digital computer.
 concern t9at patenting a >formula?3 >mat9ematical principle? is a patent on a
pree(isting relations9ip.
• autonom* fear& infringing b* converting numbers in *ou 9ead:
 Douglas seems to confuse formula /it9 algorit9m 0almost ever* process is an
algorit9m27 misconstrue t9e claims.
• ma* be motivated b* letting Congress e(tend patent to t9is ne/ industr*.
o #ar'er 6 8loo' 0)S 1"!2 H met9od for computing >alarm limit? for petroc9emical
process 9eld not patentable.
 despite fact t9at use of formula tied to p9*sical process
 relies on reasoning t9at effective patenting a scientific principle in t9e abstract7
Eust a >mat9ematical formula?
, modern practice&
o 0iamond 0iehr 0)S 1"!12 H t9e >green lig9t? for soft/are patents.
 patent on process for molding ra/ rubber. Computer7 and soft/are7 used to
constantl* monitor temperature 0according to a mat9ematical formula2 and adEust
accordingl*.
 2eld/ so!t1are patenta(le i! a appli!ation o!3 not a clai# to3 a #at2e#atical
process3 tied to t2e physi!al world.
• despite7 narro/ grounds7 PAG begins to allo/ almost all soft/are
patents7 finding t9e tie to t9e p9*sical /orld satisfied b* t9e computer
itself.
 Stevens< dissent& issue s9ould be left to Congress.
o State Street 04ed. Cir. 1""!2 H claim to data processing s*stem for mutual funds.
 so!t1are patenta(le so lon" as al"orit2# tied to so#e 5practical application6
-an& use!ul3 concrete3 tan"i(le result.
• reads .iehr as sa*ing algorit9ms not patentable onl* to t9e e(tent t9at
t9e* are >merel* abstract ideas?
 9ere7 output of programMs9are pricesMa tangible result  patentable.
 Series of 4ed. Cir. cases seems to eliminate most limits7 ignore .iehr <s tie to t9e
p9*sical /orld&
• In re /llapat H tec9niDue for smoot9ing oscilloscope displa*. Claims an*
mac9ine t9at implements transformations to smoot9 /aveforms
o patentable as specific mac9ine produces result.
• /T6T v. &xcel , claim to addition of >PIC? data field to recipients p9one
calls to give info in telep9one message record.
o claim allo/ed to process alone7 so long as *ields >practical
application?
o Lab Corp. v. Metabolite 0)S 2##62 0+re*er7 O.7 dissenting from cert. denial2 H claim to
met9od of detecting vitamin + deficienc* b* assa*ing blood and correlating level to
detect deficienc*.
, 33 ,
 +asicall*7 inventor discovered t9e correlation7 and patented an* test /9ic9
e(ploits t9e correlation
 Claim fails as&
• *. patents a 5scienti!ic principle6
o covers basicall* an*t9ing t9at e(ploits correlation
o >too broad? H detrimental to follo/,on invention due to
transaction costs
• ,. clai# pro2i(it 5#ental processes6 0Benson2
o doctor /9o assa*ed blood 0not patented2 and noticed levels
/ould seemingl* be pro9ibited from ma%ing inferential step t9at
vitamin + deficienc* e(ists.
 Tuestions validit* of t9e )tate )treet >useful7 tangible7 concrete result? test
E. $usiness Met2ods Patents
, $usiness Met2ods
o before 1""!& long,standing Eudiciall*,created pro9ibition on business met9ods
 +otel )ecurity 01"#!2 H >a s*stem transacting business disconnected from t9e
meansKis no7 /it9in t9e most liberal interpretation of t9e term7 an art?
o State Street -ed. Cir. *JJT. ; t9ere is no >business met9od? pro9ibition.
 interprets old case la/ to claim t9ere never 9as been.
 rests on 1 1#1<a inclusive language7 ignores t9e polic* issues.
 (usiness #et2ods -or an&t2in" else. patenta(le i! satis!& ot2er re:uire#ents
and ac2ie7e 5use!ul3 concrete3 and tan"i(le result.6
o polic* concerns re& business met9ods
 *. prudential/ transition pro(le#s> prior user concerns
• lead to >flood of patents? at PAG7 /9o 9asn<t developed t9is e(pertise7
/ill issue bad patents  training
• prior users& t9oug9 protected b* trade secret can not be stopped for using
o  1 23& a >prior user? defense for business met9ods patents7 if
used commerciall* before filing date in good fait9.
 ,. no need !or incenti7e
• business met9ods alread* *ield enoug9 benefits. 4irst mover7 trade
secrec*7 etc.7 enoug9.
 9. constitutional li#its , a >useful art:?
 L. co#petition H for free competition7 need t9e tools of competition available to
all.
 K. a#(i"uit& ; /9at is a business met9od:
o &bay concurrence& 4 Oustices e(press doubt over validit* of >vague and suspect? business
met9ods patents
, post, $abcorp case la/ 4ed. Cir.& reigning in )tate )treet:
o #n re .i5ten H patent on >digital /atermar%? t9at didn<t distort original files. Claim to
process and also >signal itself I/it9 specified propertiesJ?
 maEorit*&
• Court goes t9roug9 4 categoriesMprocess7 mac9ine7 manufacture7
composition of matter. Gnl* >manufacture? a close call.
• relies on dictionar& de!initions to sa& si"nal is 5too transitor&6 to (e
a 5#anu!acture6
 .inn<s dissent&
, 34 ,
• clearl* a manufacture. >made b* man? under Cha'rabarty.
• toug9er call on /9et9er t9is is an >abstract idea?
o reads into pro9ibition of abstract ideas reDuirements t9at claim
be >ne/? 0made7 not discovered2 and >useful? 0connection
bet/een claim and use27 finds t9em satisfied.
o #n re Comiskey H claim to a met9od and s*stem of arbitration. Claims tied to computer
program allo/ed7 t9ose not reEected.
 -olds >s*stem of arbitration?7 alone an >abstract idea?
 test/
• i! no practical application in clai#  not patenta(le.
• i! a(stract concept 2as practical application  #ust 5e#(odies in3
operates onUor ot2er1ise in7ol7es anot2er class o! statutor& su(<ect
#atter3 i.e.3 a #ac2ine3 #anu!actureU6
o mat9ematical algorit9ms can be patentable onl* if >claimed
practical applications and /ere tied to specific mac9ines?
 a return to t9e .iehr,li%e rules.
)III. INRINGEMENT
'u##ar&
, *. Clai# construction/ interpret scope o! t2e clai#s
o Markman 2earin"s/ consider (ot2 intrinsic e7idence -speci!ication3 prosecution.
and3 i! a#(i"uous3 e@ternal e7idence -e@perts3 dictionaries.
o a matter of la/
, ,. In!rin"e#ent Test/ does t2e accused in7ention 2a7e all ele#ents o! t2e clai#s -literal
in!rin"e#ent. or t2eir e+ivalents -DoE.D
o proceed element,b*,element7 as%ing if it is identical or an eDuivalent. If an* element not
t9e same7 no infringement.
, 9. Doctrine o! E:ui7alents -DoE./ Warner6Jenkinson
o /9et9er an >ingredient? is an eDuivalent depends on its& purpose7 function7 Dualities in
combination7 and interc9angeabilit* 0 raver Tan' 2
o t2e 5all ele#ents6 rule/ DoE in:uir& proceeds ele#ent4(&4ele#ent.
 can<t as% /9et9er invention >as a /9ole? eDuivalent.
o test/ 5e:ui7alent6 = either/
 5triple identit& test6/ sa#e 5!unction3 1a&3 and resultM OR
 5insu(stantial di!!erences6 (et1een ele#ent in patented & accused
o eDuivalence evaluated at time of infringement
o no proof of intent reDuired.
o Li#its/ canIt use DoE to "et/
 *. #atter disclosed (ut not clai#ed -Johnson 7 Johnson.
 ,. #atter 1it2in t2e prior art -Wilson Sporting Goods.
 9. #atter &ou "a7e up in prosecution -PCE3 in-ra.
, L. Prosecution Cistor& Estoppel -PCE./ can<t reclaim material *ou gave up via narro/ing
amendments in prosecution.
o a. PCE applies to an& narro1in" a#end#ent 5#ade to satis!& an& re:uire#ent o!
t2e Patent Act6 -$esto.. Presu#ption !or PCE 12en reason !or a#end#ent unclear.
-Warner6Jenkinson.
, 3$ ,
 includes amendments to avoid prior art as /ell as 1 112 reDuirements.
 if amendment 9as no clear reason7 can argue t9at it /as not >substantial reason
to patentabilit*.?
o (. W2en PCE applies3 re(utta(le presu#ption t2at all e:ui7alents are surrendered.
-$esto.
 t2ree cases 12ere co#plete (ar does not appl&/
• 12 eDuivalent /as unforeseeable at time of application
• 22 rationale of amendment bares onl* >tangential relation? to eDuivalent
• 32 >some ot9er reason? patentee could not reasonabl* 9ave been
e(pected to draft claim including eDuivalent
, K. E@peri#ental> Researc2 Use De!ense/
o a. co##on la1 de!ense/ e@peri#ental use onl& i! 5solel& !or a#use#ent3 to satis!&
idle curiosit&3 or !or strictl& p2ilosop2ical in:uir&.6 -Madey v. 0ke./
 > slig9test commercial use? /ill defeat t9e defense.
 > commercial use? N >use in %eeping /it9 legitimate business infringer?
 a >narro/ and strictl* limited? defense
o (. 8 ,E*-e.-*. e@e#ption/ covers uses >reasonabl* related to development and
submission of information to a federal regulator* bod* Iread& 4D5J?
 designed to speed up generic drug entr* into mar%et.
, H. Indirect and Di7ided In!rin"e#ent/
o a. Induce#ent -8 ,E*-(../ 5acti7el& induce6 in!rin"e#ent
 directl* encourage infringement. ReDuires %no/ledge7 or at t9e least >s9ould
9ave %no/n.? =ust be active 0Tegal2 and after issuance.
o (. Contri(utor& In!rin"e#ent -8 ,E*-c../
 12oe7er sells a 5co#ponent o! patented in7ention6
• i. constitutin" #aterial part o! t2e in7ention3
• ii. knowing co#ponent especiall& adapted to in!rin"e#ent AND
• iii. not a staple article suita(le !or su(stantiall& nonin!rin"in" use.
 Contributor* infringer must %no/ component if bot9 patented and infringing
0/ro II 2
o c. Under 8 ,E*-a./
 i. across persons ; re:uires one part& to 2a7e !ontrol o7er ot2ers -"MC v.
Paymente!h.
 ii. across nations ; patent ri"2ts are "enerall& territorial -"rown v.
0!hesne.
o d. orei"n Acti7it& -8 ,E*-!. &-"../
 i. ,E*-!. liable if supplies or causes to (e supplied in or from t9e )S&
• 12 all or substantial portion of co#ponents of an invention in suc9 a
manner to acti7el& induce in!rin"e#entM OR
• ,. an& co#ponent of a patented invention t9at is #ade especiall& to
in!rin"e Iand 9as limitations of contributor* infringement& %no/ledge7
no substantial noninfringing useJ
 ii. 8 ,E*-". ; /9oever /it9out aut9orit* i#ports into t9e )S or o!!ers to sell3
sells3 or uses 1it2in t2e U'/
• a product 12ic2 is #ade (& a process patented in t2e U'.
• )P.'SS t9e product is
o i2 materiall* c9anged b* subseDuent processes GR
o ii2 trivial and nonessential component of anot9er product.
, 36 ,
, E. E@2austion/
o a. Repair> Reconstruction Doctrine/ Repair is not in!rin"in"3 (ut reconstruction is
-'ro #..
 based on li%el* intentions of parties to t9e sale.
o (. E@2austion in General/ patenteeIs ri"2ts are e@2austed a!ter t2e !irst 7alid sale o!
a patented o(<ectM canIt condition sales -%anta.. $UT/
 12 t9oug9 restrictions on sales are pro9ibited7 restrictions in licenses are GS.
 22 contracts associated /it9 sales restricting uses are GS7 if enforceable under
state contract la/.
A. T2e Doctrine o! E:ui7alents
, -istorical Roots
o Winans v. 0enmead 0)S 1!$42 H invention is a conicall*Hs9aped railcar for transporting
coal. 5ccused invention is octagonall* s9aped 0so nearl* a circle2.
 old s*stem& central claiming. Describe invention7 claims refer bac% to
specification7 >9erein substantiall* as described.? .et Eudiciar* determine outer
limits.
 9eld& accused invention is >eDuivalent? of patented invention  infringement.
• similarit* in principle3 mode and result.
o Dissent& e( post Eudicial e(pansion of claims inappropriate as no clear limit7 no notice to
public.
, Polic&&
o 12 pro,Do'&
 a2 prevent undermining of patent b* second,comer cleverl* avoiding claims.
 b2 give patentee fair scope of invention.
 c2 give patentee >fair scope? of /9at 9e discovered.
 d2 prevent 9ards9ips to patentee from >limitations of language?
o 22 anti,Do' &
 a2 potential infringers and public 9ave no clear notice.
 b2 encourage specific and clear claim drafting
 c2 9ard to design around7 9ard on follo/,on inventors.
 d2 ma* allo/ patentee to e( post claim more t9an 9e invented
, =odern Doctrine
o Warner6Jenkinson 0)S 1""2 H affirms Do' as valid under 1"$2 Patent 5ct7 as
Congress made no >clear statement? eliminating Do'.
 facts& patent on filtration s*stem for d*es. Ao avoid prior art 0/9ic9 disclosed a
9ig9 p9 s*stem27 claims onl* p- >appro(imatel* 6.# to ".#?
• accused& 8,O7 /it9out %no/ledge of older patent7 developed process
/it9 p-N$.$.
 2eld*/ /9et9er Do' >ingredient? is an eDuivalent depends on its purpose7
function7 Dualities in combination7 and interc9angeabilit* 0 ravel Tan' 2
• prospective of P-GSAI5& /ould 9e consider t/o elements
interc9angeable:
 2eld,/ 5all ele#ents6 rule/ canIt consider 12et2er 512ole6 in7ention is
e:ui7alent. In!rin"e#ent re:uires all ele#ents to (e identical or e:ui7alent.
• can<t use Do' to eliminate limitation in t9e claims.
 2eld9/ no proo! o! intent or Bno1led"e re:uired !or DoE.
• applies even to >innocent infringers?
, 3 ,
 2eldL/ DoE e7aluated at ti#e o! in!rin"e#ent.
• allo/ inventor to get >essence of invention?7 don<t lose invention as
didn<t claim somet9ing t9at later arose.
 2eldK/ declines to endorse a >linguistic frame/or%7 but suggests test is eit2er/
• 5triple identit& test6/ !unction3 1a&3 result testM
o does alleged eDuivalent serve same function7 in same /a*7 for
same result:
o 9ard to e(tend be*ond mec9anical realm.
• OR 5insu(stantial di!!erences6 test
o /9et9er accused invention element is >insubstantiall* different?
from patented element.
, e:ui7alents in 5#eans plus !unction6 clai#s
o doctrine is uniDue since eDuivalents serve a restrictive role in 1 112 ¶ 6 claims
o uses >insubstantial differences? from means as described in specification.
Rm%& Prosecution -istor* 'stoppel
, > prosecution 9istor* estoppel?0P-'2 H a limit to Do'
o basic concept& if patentee amended to narro/ a claim in order to get a patent7 can<t
reclaim t9e material t9e* renounced later t9roug9 t9e Do'.
, Warner6Jenkinson H t9e basic rules.
o PCE onl& applies 12en 5narro1in" a#end#ent6 #ade !or 5su(stantial reason
related to patenta(ilit&6
 t9us& if amendment to limit lo/ end to 6.# made to avoid prior art 0as t9e top end
of p- ".# /as27 t9en P-' applies and Do' can<t be used to claim p- $.$.
o W2en reason !or a#end#ent unclear3 re(utta(le presu#ption t2at reason is related
to patenta(ilit&
 t9us7 patentee 9as burden for e(plaining /9* P-' s9ould not appl*.
, $esto 02##22 H clarifies scope of P-'.
o bac%ground& 4ed. Cir. 9ad 9eld t9at /9en P-' applies7 it bars an* claim of eDuivalence
/it9 respect to t9at element7 not Eust t9e particular eDuivalent surrendered.
o 2eld*/ an& narro1in" at PTO to 5satis!& an& re:uire#ent o! t2e Patent Act6 =
5related to patenta(ilit&6 and #a& "i7e rise to PCE.
 t9e definition of >substantial reason related to patentabilit*? t9us includes
amendments made to avoid prior art and 0it /ould seem2 1 112 reEectionsM
enablement7 /ritten description7 etc.
o 2eld,/ Estoppel is not a co#plete (ar to any e:ui7alent 1it2 respect to t2at ele#ent.
$UT a re(utta(le presu#ption o! t2e co#plete (ar.
 t2ree cases 12ere co#plete (ar does not appl&/
• 12 eDuivalent /as unforeseeable at time of application
• 22 rationale of amendment bares onl* >tangential relation? to eDuivalent
• 32 >some ot9er reason? patentee could not reasonabl* 9ave been
e(pected to draft claim including eDuivalent.
 even if establis9 good reason for no complete bar7 estoppel applies7 of course7 to
t9e eDuivalents disavo/ed b* amendment.
, 5dditional issues&
o 12 narro/ing amendments& giving up independent claim and %eeping dependent claim
counts 0+oney(ell2
o 22 >tangential amendments?&
, 3! ,
 no P-' if amendment 9ad no connection /it9 eDuivalence issue litigated.
 #rimos H arguing t9at dome an eDuivalent for >plate.? 5mendment made it
>differentiall* spaced plate.? 9eld tangential7 no P-'.
o 9. canIt use DoE to "et #atter disclosed (ut not clai#ed -Johnson 7 Johnson.
o L. canIt use DoE to "et #atter 1it2in t2e prior art -Wilson Sporting Goods.
o K. Re7erse DoE& never been used in 4ed. Cir.
 idea is t9at lose even /9en accused /it9in literal scope of claims >so far c9anged
in principle t9at t9e claim no longer represents accused device?
 1 112 no/ polices t9is.
$. E@peri#ental Use De!enses to In!rin"e#ent
1. Common .a/
, Rm%& e(perimental use cases ver* rare.
o no real profit motive to sue if use e(perimental7 use is in private and 9ard to detect. 5s a
practical matter7 most researc9ers Eust ignore patent.
, Madey v. 0ke 04ed. Cir. 2##22 H Researc9er removed from post at Du%e. Sues after finds out
Du%e 9as continued to use 9is patented tec9nologies.
o district court& no infringement as use >non,profit and noncommercial?
o 2eld/ 5sli"2test co##ercial use6 1ill de!eat t2e de!ense.
 5co##ercial use6 = in Beepin" 1it2 le"iti#ate (usiness o! in!rin"er
 9ere7 since attracting students7 etc.7 part of t9e legitimate business of t9e
universit*  no e(perimental use.
o a >narro/ and strictl* limited e(perimental use defense.?
o e@peri#ental use onl& i! 5solel& !or a#use#ent3 to satis!& idle curiosit&3 or !or
strictl& p2ilosop2ical in:uir&.6
, Polic&/
o 12 pro,e(perimental use&
 i2 e(ternalities from researc9
 ii2 follo/,on innovation
 iii2 criticism purpose H no profit7 but social good7 in proving ineffectiveness
 iv2 govt7 initial grantor of t9e monopol* rig9t7 pa*s for most researc9.
o 22 academic t9eor*& distinguis9 bet/een >e(perimenting on? and >researc9 tools?
 >e(perimenting on? important for criticism7 follo/,on innovation. Part of
disclosure Duid pro Duo.
 but& ma* /ant to maintain incentives for researc9 tools li%e =ade*<s
2. Statutor* 01 210e20122
, 8 ,E*-e.-*./ defense if uses >reasonabl* related to development and submission of information to
a federal regulator* bod* Iread& 4D5J?
o designed to speed up generic drug entr* into mar%et.
o statute allo/s *ou to do needed trials for 4D5 approval /it9in patent term7 so t9at
generic can enter mar%et as soon as patent e(pires
, )li Lily v. Medtroni! H too% broad reading of statutes7 covers drugs and medical devices
o -erc' H covers e(periments even /9en t9ere ends up being no 4D5 submission7 so long
as >reasonabl* related to t9e development of submission information?
, but >basic researc9? unrelated to regulator* approval of course not covered.
C. Indirect In!rin"e#ent
, 3" ,
, Rm%& rationale for indirect infringementMtransaction costs
o in t9eor*7 could also go after t9e direct infringers. +ut7 often difficult to do.
o +etter in terms of cost and public relations to go after t9e seller rat9er t9an numerous
unsuspecting bu*ers.

1. Inducement
, 8 ,E*-(./ indirectl& lia(le i! 5acti7el& induce6 in!rin"e#ent
, eg7 C.R. "ard 04ed. Cir. 1""#2 H Patent on a process for using a cat9eter. 5CS a seller of
cat9eters to 9ospitals. Direct infringers are doctors.
o +ard argues t9at 5CS i2 provided detailed information on 9o/ to use t9e cat9eter in an
infringing manner; ii2 t9e design structured in manner to encourage infringing use.
o if proved7 an inducement claim.
, Rm%s&
o no inducement unless >active.? Can<t induce b* failure to stop infringement 0Tegal
Corp.2
o t*picall* reDuires %no/ledge t9at actions /ill induce infringements. =a*be >s9ould
9ave %no/n? 0-anville2
o no pre,patent inducement.
2. Contributor* Infringement
, 8 ,E*-c./ indirectl& lia(le i! sell a 5co#ponent o! patented in7ention36
o i. constitutin" a #aterial part o! t2e patented in7ention3
o ii. knowing co#ponent especiall& adapted to in!rin"e#ent3 AND
o iii. not a staple article suita(le !or su(stantiall& nonin!rin"in" use.
, eg7 'ro ## H Patent for convertible tops7 but onl* claims t9eir use. 5ro a convertible repair s9op7
sells replacement tops7 sued on t9eor* of indirect infringement. Customers are t9e direct
infringers 0t9oug9 li%el* indemnified b* 4ord7 /9o sold t9em t9e cars2
o patentee<s t9eor*& i2 5ro sold component7 material part of patent7 ii2 %no/ingl*7 iii2 no
substantial noninfringing use.
 onl* real dispute is over scienter.
o 2eld/ contri(utor& in!rin"e#ent re:uires Bno1led"e t2at co#ponent sold is (ot2 i.
patented and ii. in!rin"in".
 rule put burden on t9e patent 9older to police7 send cease,desist letters so t9at
%no/ledge can be establis9ed.
 doesn<t reDuire legal certaint* about infringement.
o >suitable noninfringing use?:
 tops /ere designed onl* for 4ords7 so no.
 if tops could be used b* man* ot9er noninfringing customers7 *es.
D. E@2austion
, e@2austion = 5!irst sale doctrine6M patentee loses all ri"2ts -t2e& are e@2austed. a!ter t2e !irst
7alid sale o! o(<ect
o rationales& i2 free alienabilit*; ii2 transaction costs; iii2 libert* interests
o patentee s9ould onl* get one ro*alt*7 and can get it at t9e first sale
o +)A&
 *. t2ou"2 restrictions on sales are pro2i(ited3 restrictions on licenses are O0.
• license can be restrictedM*ou can onl* produce in t9is state7 eg.
 ,. contracts associated 1it2 sales restrictin" uses are O03 i! en!orcea(le under
state contract la1.
, 4# ,
• t9us7 *ou can sell an invention to someone specif*ing t9at t9e* cannot re,sell
it. If t9e bu*er does7 9e ma* be liable under contract la/ but is not an
infringer due to e(9austion.
, 8nivis Lens 0)S 1"422H D selling component t9at does not itself infringe7 but /ill be used to
infringe. Seller aut9ori@ed to sell b* patentee.
o Supreme Court 9olds t9at a sale under suc9 conditions e(9austs t9e patentee rig9ts.
, Mallin!krodt 04ed. Cir. 1""22 H Patent e(9austion a default rule7 doesn<t appl* to e(pressl*
conditioned sales. A9us sales can be conditioned >single use onl*?7 and suc9 conditions are
enforceable.
, %anta v. LG H currentl* before t9e Supreme Court.
o facts&
 .B t9e patentee7 patents on s*stems and met9ods re& data transmission
 Intel a computer c9ip ma%er7 /anting to avoid contributor* infringement7 gets a
license to patent and sell t9ese components.
 Tuanta et al.& purc9asers of c9ips from Intel
o .B<s argument&
 licenses to Intel e(pressl* disclaim t9at giving *ou a license implies a license to
ot9er computer s*stem ma%ers.
• 0but license also sa*s not9ing in t9e agreement alters t9e effect of patent
e(9austion2
 license also reDuires t9em to send notice t9at license does not e(tend to product
made b* combining an Intel product /it9 a non,Intel product.
o Tuanta uses Intel c9ips to ma%e computers. .B sues t9em. Since 9ave no contract /it9
Tuanta7 no contract claim7 9as to rel* on infringement. Tuanta claims patent e(9austion.
Rm%& Repair3 Reconstruction Doctrine
, 5Repair> Reconstruction Doctrine6 = Repair is not in!rin"in"3 (ut reconstruction is -'ro #.
o based on li%el* intentions of parties to t9e sale.
o touc9stone is reasonableness
o /ro I H repair of convertible tops7 once purc9ased7 not infringing.
, >repair? N fi(ing based on normal /ear and tear
o presumed /it9in implied terms of purc9ase
, >reconstruction? N building ane/ /it9 materials from old product.
o s9ould 9ave to bu* a ne/ one at t9is point.
E. Di7ided In!rin"e#ent/ Multiple Persons & orei"n Acti7ities
1. Divided Infringement under 1 210a2
, Under 8 ,E*-a./ t9e direct infringement statute
o i. across persons ; re:uires one part& to 2a7e !ontrol o7er ot2ers -"MC v.
Paymente!h.
 "MC v. Paymente!h H +=C patented a met9od for processing debits /it9out
PIP. A9e met9od involves actions b* several different parties. A9us t9e
infringement /as accomplis9ed b* several persons eac9 doing several steps.
• can<t use indirect infringement7 since t9ere is no direct infringer.
• if one part* 9as control over t9e all parties7 t9en t9e* can be sued.
• but ot9er/ise7 court 9eld *ou<re out of luc%.
, 41 ,
o if part* 9as no control over t9e ot9er partiesMever*t9ing is at
arm<s lengt9Mt9an t9ere are made an infringer or not based on
t9e actions of ant9er /9om t9e* cannot control.
o ii. across nations ; patent ri"2ts are "enerall& territorial -"rown v. 0!hesne.
 "rown v. 0!hesne -U' *TKH. H 4renc9 s9ip7 built in 4rance7 part of s9ip
violating patent7 comes to +oston on business7 is doc%ed t9ere for a time.
• 9eld& no infringement as patent rig9ts territorial.
• polic*& 9aving patent rig9ts e(tend ever*/9ere /ould be detrimental to
foreign affairs7 treaties7 etc.
o eg7 if patent 9older could e(clude all 4renc9 s9ips7 /ould be
problematic.
 modern statutes no/ get at some foreign activit*7 9o/everK
o iii. (ot2 persons and nations.
 .&P v. R#M 0t9e >+lac%berr*? case2 0p. "3#2 ; cast as a 210a2 case since
not9ing else applied. Patent /as on a >electronic mail s*stem?
• RI=7 based in Canada7 controls all t9e steps 0unli%e Pa*mentec927 but t9e
components involved in t9e infringement are in different countries.
• 4ed. Cir.& finds infringement as interprets >used in t9e )S? as /9ere
control and beneficial use of t9e s*stem is located .
2. 4oreign 5ctivit* 01 210f2 60g22&
, ,E*-!. liable if supplies or causes to (e supplied in or from t9e )S&
o 12 all or substantial portion of co#ponents of an invention in suc9 a manner to acti7el&
induce in!rin"e#entM OR
o ,. an& co#ponent of a patented invention t9at is #ade especiall& to in!rin"e Iand 9as
limitations of contributor* infringement& %no/ledge7 no substantial noninfringing useJ
, ii. 8 ,E*-". H >/9oever /it9out aut9orit* i#ports into t9e )S or o!!ers to sell3 sells3 or uses
1it2in t2e U'/
o a product 12ic2 is #ade (& a process patented in t2e U'.
o )P.'SS t9e product is
 i2 materiall* c9anged b* subseDuent processes GR
 ii2 trivial and nonessential component of anot9er product.
, '(amples&
o Mi!roso-t v. '&7& 0)S 2##2 H=icrosoft soft/are7 /9en installed7 violates 5AA patent.
=icrosoft allo/s a do/nload from )S to abroad 0/9ere not patented2. 5AA ma%es
210f2 claim.
 9eld& allo/ing do/nloads doesn<t suffice to sending a component under 210f2
 distinction bet/een&
• >soft/are in t9e abstract? 0t9e ideas7 code2 vs. tangible cop* 0dis%s7 etc.2
• if 9ad made CDs and sent t9em abroad7 /ould be a violation.
 polic*& 9ostilit* to e(traterritorialit* in patent.
IA. REMEDIE'
'u##ar&
, *. In<unctions
o 8 ,T9/ >Courts ma* grant inEunctions in accordance /it9 principles of eDuit*Kon suc9
terms as t9e court deems reasonable?
, 42 ,
 preliminar*& permanent factors C li%eli9ood of success.
 permanent& eBay standard.
o e"ay v. Mer!)*!hange 0)S 2##62 H
 2olds t2at usual !our !actor e:uita(le test !or 12et2er to issue an in<unction
applies/ *. irrepara(le 2ar#M ,. no ade:uate re#ed& at la1M 9. (alance o!
2ards2ipsM L. t2e pu(lic interest not disser7ed.
, ,. Da#a"es
o 8 ,TL/ >A9e court shall a/ard damages adeDuate to compensate for t9e infringement. but
in no event less t9an a reasonable ro*alt*7 toget9er /it9 interest and costs?
 *. lost pro!its ; patentee pre!ers i! can pro7e t2e#. 5#aBe 12ole6 da#a"es.
• a >but for? approac9& /9at /ould patentee 9ave got if no infringement:
• Pandit !actors/ can get lost profits if can s9o/&
o 12 demand for patented product;
o 22 absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes;
o 32 manufacturing and mar%eting abilit* to meet demand;
o 42 amount of profit 9e /ould 9ave made.
• T2e Entire MarBet )alue Rule & >If t9e patented feature is t9e basis of
consumer demand7 t9en lost profits are calculated based on t9e value of
t9e sales of t9e entire apparatus.? Sales of >tag,along? items can be
considered as /ell.
 ,. reasona(le ro&alties ; i! canIt pro7e lost pro!its
• based on >9*pot9etical negotiation? at t9e date of infringement
• #anduit suggests t9at t9e ro*alt* s9ould be e(tra,compensator*7 err on
the side of a higher royalty.
, 9. Will!ul In!rin"e#ent
o a. tre(le da#a"es under 8 ,TL onl& a7aila(le 12en in!rin"e#ent is 51ill!ul6
 #n re Seagate/ to s2o1 51ill!ul6 need/
• *. o(<ecti7el& 2i"2 risB o! in!rin"e#ent
• ,. accused Bne1 o! risB3 or 1as so o(7ious 2e s2ould 2a7e Bno1n.
 Knorr6"remse H determination of /illfulness based on >totalit* of t9e
circumstances?
o (. ad7ice o! counsel de!ense
 no 5ad7erse in!erence6 !or 1ill!ulness i! i. in7oBe t2e pri7ile"e re/ opinions
o! counsel3 or donIt seeB t2e ad7ice o! counsel.
• /9en /aive privilege to ma%e an advice of counsel defense7 scope of
/aiver does not include trial counsel 0 )eagate 2
 su(stantial de!ense to in!rin"e#ent 1onIt necessaril& de!eat lia(ilit&
o c. attorne&sI !ees -8 ,TK./ >onl* available in e@ceptional circu#stances ?
 includes& /illful infringement7 ineDuitable conduct7 litigation misconduct.
, L. Patent MarBin"
o a. 8 ,TE/ no da#a"es 1it2out notice to t2e in!rin"er3 eit2er (&/ i. patent #arBin"M ii.
direct notice
 mar%ing reDuirement doesn<t appl* to met9od claims7 but 9ave to mar%
associated apparatus if possible 0 Soverain So-tware 2
o (. 8 ,J, !alse #arBin"/ if >/it9 intent of? >deceiving t9e public?7 actionable.
A. In<unctions
, 9istor*&
, 43 ,
o inEunctions t*picall* remed* in patent la/
o 4ed. Cir. rule 9ad presumed inEunctions absent >special circumstances? 0c9anged in
eBay2
, polic&/ propert& 7. lia(ilit& rule
o can *ou bargain inn advance:
 if not 0eg7 ca accident27 liabilit* rule.
o are damages adeDuate:
 if not7 argues for propert* rule.
o problem of indeterminac*&
 if patent lines clear7 argues for propert* rule7 put burden on infringer as least cost
avoider.
 but since lines often blurred7 damages can be important to stop trolling.
, e"ay v. Mer!e*!hange 0)S 2##62 H 9eld traditional principles of eDuit* appl* in deciding
permanent inEunctions in patent conte(t.
o 2eld/ t2e usual !our !actor e:uita(le test !or 12et2er to issue and in<unction
applies/
 12 irreparable 9arm; 22 no adeDuate remed* at la/; 32 balance of 9ards9ips; 42
t9e public interest not disserved.
o Roberts concurrence&
 9istor* and purposes of patent la/ s9ould be considered in e(ercising eDuitable
discretion  /ould c9ange la/ muc9
o Senned* concurrence&
 c9ange in la/ to stop patent trolls.
• trolls N don<t produce under patent7 Eust use it as means of getting
ro*alties. >Spring up? unforeseen to demand ro*alties.
• concern about >9old up? problems and e(ploitation7 /9ere troll can e(act
large fee because of unsuspecting reliance7 in invention 0eg7 soft/are2
/it9 multiple patents.
 trolls considered particular problem in IA.
, Casela/ after eBay&
o more li%el* to get damages /9en& i2 non,practicing patentee; ii2 patentee controls onl*
one component of D<s larger product.
o Gpen Duestion after eBay& /9at s9ould be t9e test for preliminar* inEunctions:
 usual one& permanent inEunction factors C >li%eli9ood of success on t9e merits?
 currentl*7 irreparable harm is presumed is can s9o/ li%eli9ood of success
• unli%el* t9is survives eBay
$. Lost Pro!its
, 8 ,TL/ >A9e court shall a/ard damages adeDuate to compensate for t9e infringement. but in no
event less t9an a reasonable ro*alt*7 toget9er /it9 interest and costs?
o *. lost pro!its ; patentee pre!ers i! can pro7e t2e#. 5#aBe 12ole6 da#a"es.
 a >but for? approac9& /9at /ould patentee 9ave got if no infringement:
o ,. reasona(le ro&alties ; i! canIt pro7e lost pro!its.
, Pandit 06t9 Cir. 1"!2&
o Pandit !actors/ can "et lost pro!its i! can s2o1/
 *. de#and !or patented productM
 ,. a(sence o! accepta(le nonin!rin"in" su(stitutesM
• most difficult factor. See rain #rocessing.
, 44 ,
 9. #anu!acturin" and #arBetin" a(ilit& to #eet de#andM
 L. a#ount o! pro!it 2e 1ould 2a7e #ade.
, Rite2,ite H some of lost sales from infringement due to sale of noninfringing obEects7
o 9eld& can get lost profits for all foreseeable lost sales7 even if noninfringing.
o limit is >but for? principle
o dissent& patent a particular rig9t7 s9ould be limited b* t9e scope of t9e patent.
 protection doesn<t e(tend to Rite,-ite<s /9ole RCD program.
, 5cceptable Poninfringing Substitutes:
o Grain Pro!essing 04ed. Cir. 1"""2 H Patentee 9as process patent for production of
malode(trin >.o,De( 1#?. Infringer can ma%e it several different /a*s7 onl* some of
/9ic9 are infringing.
 9eld& an* option t9at t9e infringer could have used 7 even if not on t9e mar%et7 7
considered an >available acceptable noninfringing substitute?
o #anduit H >Accepta(le6 i#plies 5rou"2 co#para(ilit& o! :ualit&7? of noninfringing
product. =ore t9an Eust a replacement7 must be an equal one7 more or less
, T2e Entire MarBet )alue Rule & >If t9e patented feature is t9e basis of consumer demand7 t9en
lost profits are calculated based on t9e value of t9e sales of t9e entire apparatus.? Sales of >tag,
along? items can be considered as /ell. 0 State #ndstries 2
o Rm%& Patent Reform .egislation7 9olds t9at7 in determining reasonable ro*alt* rateM
t9oug9 not lost profitsMcan onl* use t9e 'ntire =ar%et value rule if patented component
is predominant source of demand.
C. Reasona(le Ro&alties
, (ased on 52&pot2etical ne"otiation6 at t2e ti#e o! in!rin"e#ent
o to increase deterrence7 courts t*picall* err on t9e 9ig9er side 0 #anduit 2
o t9oug9 can<t be e(plicit about >#anduit %ic%ers? 0-ahur'ar2
, cf. >anal*tical met9od? H base on infringer<s o/n proEections of t9e profits t9at /ould result from
infringement
o 9as a nice poetic Eustice element7 good for patentee as proEections inflated.
, polic*&
o give patentee more t9an /ould 9ave gotten7 so as to&
 deter infringement
 punis9 /rongdoers
 recover legal costs
 compensate for problems of proof.
D. Will!ul In!rin"e#ent
, 8 ,TL/ >t9e court ma* a/ard increased damages up to t9ree times t9e amount found.? 1 2!$
allo/s attorne*s< fees
o case la1 2olds tre(le da#a"es under 8 ,TL onl& a7aila(le 12en in!rin"e#ent is
51ill!ul6
, Knorr6"remse H D1 declines to divulge opinion of counsel7 D2 didn<t see% one.
o determination of /illfulness based on >totalit* of t9e circumstances?
 no >9ard a fast rules?
o 2eld*/ no 5ad7erse in!erence6 !or 1ill!ulness i! i. in7oBe t2e pri7ile"e re/ opinions o!
counsel3 or donIt seeB t2e ad7ice o! counsel.
o 2eld,/ su(stantial de!ense to in!rin"e#ent 1onIt necessaril& de!eat lia(ilit&.
, #n re Seagate 04ed. Cir. 2##2 H more clarification of /illfulness standard.
o to s2o1 51ill!ul6 need/
, 4$ ,
 *. o(<ecti7el& 2i"2 risB o! in!rin"e#ent
 ,. accused Bne1 o! risB3 or 1as so o(7ious 2e s2ould 2a7e Bno1n.
o overturns 1nder(ater .evices7 /9ic9 9eld t9at notice gave rise to an affirmative >dut* of
care? to determine /9et9er 9e is infringing or not.
o /9en /aive privilege to ma%e an advice of counsel defense7 scope of /aiver does not
include trial counsel.
o BaEarsa concurrence&
 follo/ plain meaning7 vest treble damages in discretion of trial court7
, 8 ,TK/ >attorne*<s fees onl* available in e@ceptional circu#stances ?
o includes& /illful infringement7 ineDuitable conduct7 litigation misconduct. =ust be
egregious.
E. Patent MarBin"
, 8 ,TE/ no da#a"es 1it2out notice to t2e in!rin"er3 eit2er (&/
o patent #arBin"
o direct notice
, eg7 Soverain So-tware H mar%ing reDuirement doesn<t appl* to met9od claims7 but 9ave to mar%
associated apparatus if possible
, 1 2"2& false mar%ing >/it9 intent of? >deceiving t9e public? is actionable.
A. LEGAL PROCE''E' O TCE PATENT '%'TEM
A. Disclai#er3 Correction3 Reissue7 & Ree@a#ination
, 'u##ar&
o *. disclai#er -8 ,K9. ; invalid claims made >/it9out deceptive intention? ma* be
disclaimed7 t9at is7 disavo/ed b* patentee
 motivation& can<t recover litigation costs in suit unless all claims in patent are valid.
o ,. Correction -88 ,KL;,KH. 4 available onl* for 5#inor6 or 5clerical6 errors
 8 ,KL ; if PAG<s fault7 PAG ma* issue certification or correction
 8 ,KK ; if applicant<s fault7 reDuires&
• i2 >clerical? or >t*pograp9ical? error made in good fait9
• ii2 can<t introduce an* ne/ matter3 c9ange t9e intended scope of t9e claims
• iii2 c9anged claims onl* appl* to conduct after t9e correction
 Sperior $irepla!e H can onl* use correction if clear from prosecution 9istor* and3
or specification 9o/ t9e error is to be corrected7 or if correction minor.
o 9. Reissue -88 ,K*;,K,. H can fi( more serious errors t9at render t9e patent >/9oll* or
partiall* invalid?
 can get reissue for errors li%e&
• failure to meet 1 112 reDuirements
• claiming more or less t9an 9ad a rig9t to 0can add ne/7 narro/er claims2
 a. li#itations/
• i2 /9ole ne/ ree(amination7 no presumption of validit*.
• ii2 onl* patentee can reDuest reissue
• iii2 no ne/ matter can be claimed
• iv2 no deceptive intention b* patentee
• 7. (roadenin" reissues onl& 1>in t1o &ears
, 46 ,
o > no ne/ matter?& limited to t9ings t9at are described and enabled in
t9e specification
o > recapture rule?& can<t use reissue to get material deliberatel*
surrendered during prosecution.
• 7i. e@istin" users "et inter7ention ri"2ts
• vii2 reDuires notice to interested parties 0in litigation7 eg2
• no >intent to claim? reDuired to get a reissue7 t9oug9 it<s a factor 0 In re
+ounsfield 2
 (. Inter7enin" Ri"2ts -8 ,K,. !or $roadenin" Reissues
• >absolute? H rig9t to continue using7 selling or offering to sell 4the specific
thing so made5 /9en product t9at didn<t infringe original but does infringe
reissue.
• > eDuitable? H if7 before t9e reissue made >substantial preparation?3
investment to/ard using product t9at infringes reissue but not original7 prior
user may get rig9ts from court based on equitable principles&
o reliance7 good fait97 clean 9ands7 etc.
o L. ree@a#ination H tr* to /eed out >bad patents?
 Rm%& an*one 9as rig9t to submit prior art to PAG under 1 3#17 /9ic9 becomes part
of t9e file.
• rarel* used7 not muc9 practical value.
 a. e@ parte/ gives t9ird part* 0or PAG sua sponte2 ri"2t to c2allen"e 7alidit& o!
patent3 solel& on 5patents or pu(lications6 anticipation "rounds7 b* submitting a
reDuest for ree(amination.
• ReDuest must raise a >ne/ and substantial? issue as to patentabilit*
• if PAG so decides7 t9en it orders a ree(amination proceeding
o reDuester 9as minimal participation 0ma%e a response27 no rig9t to
appeal. Patentee 9as rig9t to appeal.
o e(aminer essentiall* a >re,do? of prosecution. Po assumption of
patent validit*.
• can<t add ne/ matter during ree(am7 or void entire claim 0 9uantum Corp .2
 (. inter partes/
• reDuester 0t9ird part*2 9as full rig9ts to be involved and participate in
ree(amination
o greater participation  more rig9ts to police
• A9ird part* gets rig9t to appeal.
o +ut& statute does allo/ for estoppel impact7 in later infringement
suit7 for issues t9at /ere raised or could 9ave been raised in
ree(amination.
o estoppel limits number of ree(amination reDuests.
• mainl* used b* public interest patent groups
 Ic2 post,grant opposition& proposed in Patent Reform 5ct.
• full admin litigation in PAG.
, '(amples&
o Sperior $irepla!e 04ed. Cir. 2##12 H applicant /anted to correct >rear /alls? to >rear
/all.? C9ange made as a result of telep9one conversation /it9 e(aminer. PAG grants
reDuest for certificate of certification.
 evidentiar* burden& since PAG granted t9is7 c9allenging correction c9allenges
validit* of patent7 t9erefore a clear and convincing evidence standard.
, 4 ,
 held9
• i2 >clerical? correction allo/ed onl* if clear from specification7 dra/ing7 or
prosecution 9istor* 9o/ error s9ould be corrected.
• ii2 >minor? error cannot b* an*t9ing t9at broadens t9e scope of t9e claim
 D*%<s dissent&
• maEorit* s9ould afford more deference to PAG7 /9o7 being involved in t9e
process7 is in t9e best position to %no/ /9et9er error is clerical or not.
o Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast 04ed. Cir. 1""32 H can<t7 t9roug9 reissue7 get limitations removed
t9at /ere deliberatel* added to avoid prior art.
 5recapture rule6/ canIt use reissue to "et #aterial deli(eratel& surrender
durin" prosecution.
• as t9is is not t9e t*pe of >error? contemplated b* t9e statute.
• /or%s in a parallel to prosecution 9istor* estoppel<s role in Do'.
 )sed to 9ave to s9o/ *ou intended to claim t9e area in order to get a reissue. In re
+ounsfield : no >intent to claim? reDuired to get a reissue7 t9oug9 it<s a factor.
o Seattle "o* 04ed. Cir 1"!$2 H Industrial7 alleged infringer7 made pipe 1316? bigger to avoid
original /9ere t9e* /ere >eDual?. Patentee reissues to >substantiall* eDual?7 and infringer
deisgns 9as bac% stoc% of 0no/2 infringing pipes.
 9eld& Industrial can sell off its bac% stoc% based on eDuitable intervening rig9ts.
 dissent& Industrial 9as unclean 9ands.
o 9uantum Corp. 04ed. Cir. 1""$2 H During ree(amination proceeding7 claim c9anges to >at
least 6## tpi? to >at least appro(imatel* 6## tpi?
 9eld& one is not allo/ed to broaden claims on re,e(amination.
 result& t9e entire claim is invalid 0doesn<t return to /9at it /as before2.
$. Ine:uita(le Conduct
, Rules/
o *. 'ources o! Dut& to Disclose
 a. PTO Rule KH
• dut* to disclose >all information material to patentabilit*?
• > material to patentabilit*? N
o not cumulative of information alread* received7 and
o i2 establis9es prime facie case of unpatentabilit*; GR
o ii2 refutes in inconsistenc* /it9 an* position applicant ta%es re&
patentabilit*
 (. <udicial e:uita(le po1ers
o ,. Ele#ents
 5ine:uita(le conduct6 re:uires proo! o! t2res2old le7el o!/
• i. #aterialit&
• ii. intent to decei7e
• once t9res9old satisfied7 t/o factors are applied on sliding scale. JP
Stevens.
 intent/ in!erred 5!ro# all t2e circu#stances6 -Critikon.
• reDuires >clear and convincing evidence? at trial. Revie/ for abuse of
discretion on appeal.
• loo% to& /9at patent %ne/ and /9en; materialit* of information; an*
e(cuse3 e(planation of /9* not disclosed.
, 4! ,
• Celd/ "ross ne"li"ence3 alone3 not enou"2 to s2o1 intent -Kingsdown
Medi!al.
 #aterialit&
• materialit* N > an& in!or#ation t9at a reasona(le e@a#iner /ould be
substantiall* liBel& to consider i#portant in deicing /9et9er to allo/
an application as a patent? 0 /'ron #olymer 2
o courts use more e(pansive definition t9an PAG $6.
o 9. Result/ Entire Patent in7alidated.
 an >e(ceptional case? so attorne*<s fess can be a/arded.
, '(amples
o egs of ineDuitable conduct&
 failure to disclose an* of& material references 0incl. foreign27 public use or sales7
relations9ips /it9 affiants7 or ongoing litigation re& patent 0Criti'on2
 failure to disclose best mode.
 false or misleading affidavits or data.
 /it99olding best mode.
 covers bot9 misrepresentations and omissions
o Critikon 04ed. Cir. 1""2 H patentee fails to disclose i2 prior reference7 and ii2 e(istence of
t9is litigation in a reissue proceeding.
 district court found no ineDuitable conduct7 revie/ for abuse of discretion.
 intent
• direct evidence of intent rare7 intent instead inferred from all t9e
circumstances.
 materialit*&
• failure to disclose ongoing litigation is also clearl* material7 as it /ould
bring t9e e(aminer<s attention into focus on %e* issues7 ma%e 9im a/are of
t9e prior art in litigation.
o 'kron Polymer H e(ample of more e(pansive Eudicial definition of materialit*
 materialit* N >an* information t9at a reasonable e(aminer /ould substantiall* li%el*
consider important in deicing /9et9er to allo/ an application as a patent?
• unclear /9et9er it is appropriate from courts to alter t9e standard t9e PAG
/ants.
• on t9e ot9er 9and7 PAG doesn<t 9ave substantive rulema%ing aut9orit*7
courts /is9 to be @ealous of t9eir traditional eDuitable aut9orit*.
o Prde Pharma 04ed. Cir. 2##62 H prop9etic e(ample7 in specification7 invention called
>surprisingl* discovered?7 /9en t9e* meant >predicted?. -eld to be ineDuitable conduct7
outcr* in patent bar.
o Kingsdown Medi!al 04ed. Cir. 1"!!2 H in prosecution7 one claim /as minorl* c9anged based
on indefiniteness obEection of PAG. In continuation7 mista%enl* used t9e indefinite claim
instead of amended one. Indefinite version gets into patent.
 4ed. Cir. finds no ineDuitable conduct7 reverses district court. 4inds no intent.
• district court found intent based on i2 gross negligence7 ii2 inference from
circumstances
 -eld& gross negligence7 alone7 not enoug9 to s9o/ intent. Pegligence ma* be a
factor to infer intent7 but must consider it in lig9t of all circumstances.
• relies on fact t9at claim /as one of man* in complicated application7
e(aminer didn<t notice it7 error seemingl* Eust ministerial.
, 4" ,
AI. TRADE 'ECREC%
Polic&
, 5Arro1Is disclosure parado@6/ trade secrets 9ard to sell or license
o if tell t9em so t9e* %no/ /9at it is /ort97 t9e* alread* %no/ it.
, trade secrec* v. patent
o disad7anta"es !or creator/ trade secrec* doesn<t protect against i2 reverse engineering
or ii2 independent invention. Can<t easil* license t9e idea.
 advantage& ot9ers can compete in t9ese /a*s.
 disadvantage& ma* lessen incentives.
 lengt9 of term uncertain7 depends on i2 ease of reverse engineer; ii2 effectiveness
of secrec*.
o social costs v. patents& patent7 but not trade secrec*7 allo/s disclosure to t9e public and
eas* licensing and so&
 i2 encourages follo/,on innovation
 ii2 prevents /asteful re,invention
 iii2 finds most efficient users.
, /9* c9oose trade secrec*:
o i2 innovation falls outside subEect matter of IP protection
o ii2 difficult to reverse engineer  returns on trade secrec* better
 if t9in% can %eep it for a longer time7 can full* e(ploit /it9out licensing.
A. 'u(stanti7e Trade 'ecrec& La1/ t2e UT'A and EEA.
, Rules
o state trade secrec& la1. t1o #ain #eans/ i. UT'AM ii. non4co#pete a"ree#ents.
o *. Uni!or# Trade 'ecrec& Act H adopted in most states
 5 trade secret6 N informationK.t9at&
• 012 deri7es independent econo#ic 7alue.U from not being generall*
%no/n or readil& ascertaina(le (& Kb* ot9er persons /9o can obtain
economic value form its disclosure; 5PD
• 022 is t9e subEect of reasona(le e!!orts 7 under t9e circumstancesK to
#aintain its secrec&.
o eg7 confidentialit* agreements7 restriction of access.
o onl* reasonable reDuired so as not to encourage over,protection&
/ould be inefficient for ever*one to 9ave 9*per,securit*.
 5 #isappropriation6 N
• 012 ac:uisition of a trade secret b* a person 12o Bno1s or s2ould Bno1
t9at t9e trade secret /as o(tained (& i#proper #eans.
• 022 disclosure or use of a trade secret a trade secret b* a person /9o
Bne1 or 2ad reason to Bno1 t9at t9e trade secret /as ac:uired under
a dut& to #aintain its secrec&.
 > improper means? N t9eft7 briber*7 breac9 of a dut* to maintain secrec*K
 Case la/&
• no7elt& not re:uired !or trade secrec& -0ionne.
• can #isappropriate trade secrets &ou 2elped in7ent -0ionne.
• can (e 5ine7ita(le disclosure6 o! secrets in so#e cases -PepsiCo.
o ,. non4co#pete a"ree#ents.
, $# ,
 non,compete clause enforced7 but given >special scrutin*? b* court for
>reasonableness? and no financial oppression 0Gillette v. Williams2
 scrutin* for libert* interests7 unfair bargaining7 social interest in mobile
/or%force.
• C5 does not enforce t9ese agreements on public polic* grounds.
o 9. ederal Trade 'ecrec&/ T2e Econo#ic Espiona"e Act -EEA. -*T U'C 8 *T9*.
 provides federal criminal remed* for trade secrets.
 defines trade secrec* analogous to states.
 a2 must commit one of pro9ibited acts&
• 012 stealsKa trade secret;
• 022 /it9out aut9ori@ation copies...communicates7 or conve*s a trade
secret;
• 032 receives7 bu*s7 or possesses a trade secret7 %no/ing t9e same to 9ave
been stolen or appropriated;
• 0427 0$2 attempts or conspires to above.
 b2 reDuires >intent to convertKa trade secret?
, '(amples
o 0ionne Hfamil* business to manufacture compressed foam. Sept met9od as trade secret
0couldn<t patent as /asn<t novel or /as obvious2. 5ll famil* and ''s sign confidentialit*
agreements. Son splits off7 and begins competing7 using trade secret.
 0Rm%& could also 9ave sued for breac9 of contract. +ut&
• onl* applies against person /9o 9ad contract /it97 not 3rd part*
recipients of information.
• li%el* to get damages and not inEunction. Can get inEunctions under trade
secrec*.2
 12 a trade secret:
• independent economic value and not readil* ascertainable&
o economic value eas*7 but D argues t9at invention /as obviousK
o 9eld& novelt* not reDuired for trade secrets7 onl* secrec*.
• reasonable means of securit*& confidentialit* agreements7 restriction of
access enoug9.
 22 /as t9ere misappropriation:
• argues 9e can<t misappropriate somet9ing 9e 9elped to create.
o court reEects t9is& one can misappropriate t9ings *ou 9elped
create Pot a defense /it9in )niform 5ct.
• assumption secret belongs to t9e compan* as used compan*<s resources7
multiple creative inputs 09e<s not sole inventor2 to create.
o PepsiCo ; PepsiCo e(ecutive7 priv* to confidential information 0essentiall* mar%eting
strateg* info2. 8is9es to move to Tua%er7 /9ere 9e too% a Eob.
 Pepsi sues for a preliminar* inEunction7 arguing t9at 9e /ould inevitabl* disclose
t9eir confidential information.
 trade secret& customer lists canonical trade secrets re& economic value.
Reasonable securit* measures not an issue.
 >actual of t9reatened? misappropriation:
• argument t9at Redmond /ill be ma%ing strategic c9oices7 /on<t be able
to stop from ta%ing into account.
• 9eld& A9ere /ill be >inevitable disclosure? of trade secrets under t9e
circumstances7 even t9oug9 no attempted or planned misappropriation.
, $1 ,
o stretc9es meaning of >t9reatened?
• /9* not Eust /ait and see7 let Pepsi sue under contract:
o breac9 /ill be mental7 and so 9ard to prove.
o Gillette H no,compete agreements given additional scrutin* due to libert* interests7
societal interest in mobile ''s.
 9ere7 9eld enforceable as&
• reasonable period of time H 2 *ears
• reasonable geograp9ical scope7 given business H )S GS
• consideration H no evidence of coercive bargaining
• no financial oppression H given 9alf,salar* /9en clause applies.
o 8nited States v. Lange H '' at R5PCG7 an aftermar%et airplane part provider /9o
speciali@es in reverse engineering7 ta%es t9eir reverse engineering results7 and see%s to
sell t9em on t9e Internet for Z1##7###. Suit under ''5.
 Is information t9at can be obtained t9roug9 reverse engineering a >trade secret?:
• certainl* economic value7 reasonable means.
• but& is information >readil* ascertainableKb* t9e public? since an*one
could Eust reverse engineer:
o Court 9olds t9at >public? means >commerciall* relevant public?
• .ange<s information applies7 as not readil* ascertainable7 and value from
being suc9.
$. Pree#ption o! 'tate Trade Re"ulation $& ederal La1
, Rules
o *. Patent la1 does not pree#pt state trade secrec& la1 -Kewanee (il.
 fiction t9at t9ere /ill be >minimal interference? since most people /ill c9ose
patent la/ if subEect matter is protectable.
o ,. (ut/ 'tate cannot con!er 5patent;liBe6 protection ai#ed at desi"n and utilitarian
ele#ents -"onito "oats. !or unprotecta(le #atter or e@pired patents -Sears:Comp!o.
 idea t9at restrictions on >rig9t to reverse engineer? scrutini@ed.
, '(amples
o Kewanee (il ; Patent la/ does not preempt state trade secrec* la/.
 reasons /9* /e mig9t /ant preemption&
• 12 trade secrec* undermines disclosure incentives of patent la/
• 22 don<t /ant states to create rig9ts /9ere Congress made decision not
to.
o Congress could create sui generis s*stem if /anted to.
• 32 uniformit* interest H facilitates commerce.
• 42 Constitutional limits& Cop*rig9t and Patent Clause stri%es balance
bet/een e(clusive rig9ts and competition.
 Court argues t9at state trade secrec* does not interfere /it9 Congress<s sc9eme7
since patenting rig9ts stronger 0protection against reverse engineering7
independent inventors2
• idea t9at >if *ou can get a patent7 *ou /ill?
• t9us7 Court concludes trade secret /ill mostl* be used in cases outside
patentable subEect matter  minimal interference.
 argues t9at trade secrec* 9as benefits /it9in un,patentable subEect matter
• create incentives and protects against free riders
, $2 ,
• encourages independent inventors7 competition3 reverse engineering.
• discourages e(cessive securit*7 9oarding of secrets.
• protects >et9ics of t9e mar%et?
o "onito "oats 0)S 1"!"2 H 4lorida passes protection for boat 9ull design7 pro9ibiting
cop*ing b* direct molding7 c9allenged as preempted b* federal la/ 0at t9e time7 boat
9ulls not patentable7 and not cop*rig9table2
 /9* protection needed& reall* eas* to reverse engineer.
 given *e(anee 7il7 mig9t t9in% states free to regulate t9is un,patentable subEect
matter. +ut court 9olds for preemption
 12& t2is is di!!erent/ states canIt con!er 5patent4liBe6 ri"2ts -e@clusion..
Congress 9asn<t left t9e area unattended..
• li%e patents7 but unli%e trade secrec*7 4la. la/ pro9ibits reverse
engineering7 protection aimed at design and utilitarian elements.
o concern of ta'ing things out of public domain.
o trade secrec* doesn<t reall* do t9is7 as can reverse engineer.
P ATENT LAW CCEC0LI'T
)ALIDIT%
I. Patenta(le 'u(<ect Matter
, A. A(stracts Ideas & 'cienti!ic Principles
o Po patents on abstract ideas 0 -orse 27 but patents on particular applications 0 Telephone
Cases 2
, $. Products o! Nature
o 5an&t2in" under t2e sun #ade (& #an6 patenta(le -Chakrabarty.7 so long as not >la/
of nature7 p9*sical p9enomena7 abstract idea.?
o puri!ied natural su(stances patenta(le i! 5!or all practical purposes a ne1 t2in"6
-Parke60avis.
, C. 'o!t1are & Al"orit2#s
o 0eihr ; so!t1are patenta(le i! an application3 tied to t2e p2&sical 1orld
o State Street ; so!t1are patenta(le i! &ields an& 5use!ul3 concrete3 tan"i(le result6
 $abcorp suggests tie to p9*sical /orld still a limit. Can<t patent a scientific
principle of a >mental process.?
, D. $usiness Met2ods
o State Street H no pro2i(ition on (usiness #et2od patents. Onl& li#it 5use!ul3
concrete3 tan"i(le result6
 after $abcorp7 4ed. Cir. scaling t9is bac%K
o #n re Chomiskey H >met9od of arbitration? an abstract idea7 despite tie to computer
program. Aest&
 no practical application  no patent
 a(stract concept #ust 5operates on3 e#(odies in3 trans!or#sUa #ac2ine3
#anu!acture3 co#position o! #atter6
II. Utilit& -88 *+*3 *,*.
, a2 operational 0it /or%s2
, b2 beneficial 0non,9armful to social /ell being 0 $o(ell 2 0 Juicy "hip 2
, $3 ,
, c2 practical utilit*& used mainl* for biotec9
o ,++* PTO/ 5speci!ic3 credi(le3 su(stantial6/
o #n re $isher ; 5real 1orld6 use 1it2 5i##ediate (ene!it to pu(lic6
III. 'tatutor& $ars -8 *+,-(.3 -c.3 -d..
, terminolog*&
o >grace period? H 1 *ear allo/ed after public use7 sale7 publication before filing.
o >critical date? N one *ear before filing.
, A. In7ention descri(ed in pu(lication R * &ear (e!ore !ilin" -8 *+,-(..
o >publication? defined same as 1#20a27 IF.D7 infra.
, $. 5On sale6 in U' R * &ear (e!ore !ilin" -8 *+,-(..
o P--a- ; 5on sale6 = i. co##ercial o!!er o! saleM ii. 5read& !or patentin"6.
 > read* for patenting? N actual RAP7 or enabling descriptions.
, C. 5Pu(lic Use6 in U' R * &ear (e!ore !ilin" -8 *+,-(..
o )gbert H >public? /9en no confidentialit* agreements7 told ot9ers.
o Mole!lon H not public as maintain >control? over t9e invention.
o "ea!h!omber H s9o/ing at part* /it9out restrictions >public?
o for applicant public use& non,secret7 non,informing7 trade secret all public.
o for t9ird part* public use& above7 but trade secret use not public.
, D. 5E@peri#ental Use or 'ale6 e@ception
o e@peri#ental use reasona(l& necessar& to de7elop t2e in7ention doesnIt tri""er
statutor& (ar -City o- )li1abeth; Manville.
 must %eep control over t9e invention 0 $ough 2
 mar%et researc9 not e(perimental use 0 In re )mith 2
I). No7elt& & Anticipation -8 *+,-a.3 -e.3 -!.3 -"..
, A. 'tandards/ to anticipate3 need/
o i. sin"le re!erence 1it2 ALL li#itations o! t2e clai#s3 unless ele#ent 5in2erent63 ie3
 a2 necessarily present to a P-GASI5 0 !obertson 2
 b2 present as a matter of p9*sical or natural la/ 0 )chering 2
o ii. e!!ecti7e date (e!ore 5date o! in7ention6
o iii. ena(les t2e in7ention
 lo/er bar; need onl* enable t9e ma%ing7 not t9e use 0 +afner 2
o species anticipates "enus3 (ut not 7ice 7ersa -i! species nono(7iousness.
o Accidental Anticipation doesnIt count -Seaborg3 &ilghman.
o close cases& consider polices of anticipationHinfringement s*mmetr*7 ta%ing inventions
out of t9e public domain.
o Corro(oration Rule/ oral testi#on& to in7alidate patent #ust (e corro(orated
-$innegan3 "arbed Wire.
, $. 5Bno1n (& ot2ers6 in U' -8 *+,-a..
o reDuires public %no/ledge 0 ,at2l Truc' #ullers 2
o > lost art? %no/ledge doesn<t anticipate 0 ayler 2
, C. 5used (& ot2ers6 in U' -8 *+,-a..
o lo/er public,ness reDuired
o ulf 7il H >public use? N >done openl* in t9e ordinar* course of business?
o "$ ore ; >public use? N >nonsecret commercial use?.
, D. 5descri(ed in a pu(lication6 an&12ere -8 *+,-a..
o > publication? N enoug9 currenc* to ma%e /or% part of t9e art? 0 Joc'mus 2
, $4 ,
o Be& is disse#ination and accessi(ilit& to t2e pu(lic -Klop-enstein.
 factors& directed at target audience; number sent; organi@ed3searc9able;
restrictions on cop*ing.
, '2 >patented? an*/9ere 01 1#20a22 H subsumed b* publis9ed prong.
, . Disclosure in earlier4!iled patents -5secret prior art6. -8 *+,-e..
o e"3 Milbrn H no patent /9en earlier filed patent7 eventuall* granted or publis9ed7
disclosed but did not claim applicant<s subEect matter.
, G. Deri7ation !ro# anot2er -8 *+,-!..
o no patent if stole idea from anot9er 0 Campbell 2
o assistance not derivation 0 /ga(am 2
o '' inventor gets rig9ts unless e(press or implied contract; 'R can get >s9op rig9t?
, C. Made in t2e U' (& anot2er in7entor -8 *+,-". prior art.
o no patent if made in )S b* anot9er inventor7 /9o doesn<t abandon.
o in interference proceeding7 no >in t9e )S? reDuirement.
, I. Priorit& under 8 *+,-".
o *. *st to concei7e and RTP  priorit& i! donIt A'C
o ,. *st to concei7e (ut ,d to RTP  priorit& onl& i! 5reasona(l& dili"ent6 (et1een ,d
conception and 2is RTP
o 9. I! A'C a!ter RTP  lose.
o reduction to practice 0RAP2
 eit2er i. actual RTP -(uild and reco"niNed 1orBed.M or ii. constructi7e RTP
-!ile a 7alid application.
o reasonabl* diligent
 >critical period? N bet/een 2d conception and applicant<s RAP
 >reasonableness? standard& need e(cuses for dela*s 0Barbacaid2
o abandon7 suppress7 conceal 05SC2
 reDuires intent to abandon7 but can be inferred from e(treme dela*s 0#eeler2
 trade secret use  5SC 0illman2. Poninforming use  no 0.unlop2
o 'videntiar* Rules
 a. <unior part& 2as (urden/ preponderance in interference; clear and
convincing if infringement
 (. corro(oration re:uire#ent !or testi#on& re/ conception3 RTP/
5independent e7idence6 -"arba!aid.
). Nono(7iousness -8 *+9.
, A. Graham In:uir&
o test/ 5di!!erence (et1een su(<ect #atter and prior art s.t. su(<ect #atter on t2e
12ole o(7ious to a PCO'ITA6
o 3 factual inDuiries& a2 scope and content of t9e prior art; b2 differences b3/ prior art and
invention; c2 s%ill level of p9osita.
o KSR H a 5co##on sense6 approac2. Not T'M.
, $. 'cope and Content o! t2e Prior Art
o "inslo( tableau
o #n re Wood N art 1it2in *+, F 5analo"ous6
 > analogous? N 12 same field; GR 22 reasonable pertinent to t9e problem being
solved 0 In re Clay 2.
, C. 'u(tests !or O(7iousness
o co#(ination o! old ele#ents &ieldin" predicta(le results  o(7ious -KSR; Leap-rog.
, $$ ,
o P-GSIA5 not an automaton 0 *)! 2
o 5o(7ious to tr&6 F li#ited possi(ilities Fpredicta(le art  o(7ious -P-i1er.
, D. 'econdar& Considerations
o a. #arBet success , need >ne(us? bet/een success and patented element 0 +ybridtech 2
o (. lon"4!elt (ut unsol7ed needs
o c. !ailure o! ot2ers> 5teac2in" a1a&6 -'dams.
)I. 8 **, Re:uire#ents
, A. ena(le#ent H P-GSAI5 must be able to ma%e >full use? of invention /it9out undue
e(perimentation.
o #n re $isher H scope o! ena(le#ent = disclosed in speci!ication F Bno1n to PCO'ITA
1it2out undue e@peri#entation.
o Wands !actors/ >undue? N predictabilit* of art7 s%ill of P-GSIA57 Duantit* of
e(perimentation7 guidance given7 breadt9 of claims7 etc.
, $. de!initeness ; must >particularl* point and distinctl* claim? subEect matter
o (rthokineti!s test ; 1ould PCO'TIA understand 12at is clai#ed.
, C. 1ritten description ; t/o parts&
o i. 5no ne1 #atter6
 1 132& can<t use amendments to claim t9ings not /it9in /ritten description as
originall* filed.
o ii. 1ritten description #ust s2o1 5possession o! t2e in7ention6 at ti#e o! application
-Gentry Galley; )li Lilly.
 ,++* PTO/
• inadeDuate if solel* a met9od and function /it9 no connection bet/een
structure and function 0 &li $illy 2
, D. (est #ode ; inventor must reveal best mode of practice 'no(n to him at time of application
o in7entor #ust a. disclose 2is (est #ode -su(<ecti7e.3 and (. disclosure #ust (e
ade:uate -i.e.3 ena(lin". -Chem!ast.
)II. Ine:uita(le Conduct
, A. PTO Rule KH/ dut* to disclose >all information material to patentabilit*?
o material to patentabilit*? N
 not cumulative of information alread* received7 an
 i2 establis9es prime facie case of unpatentabilit*; GR
 ii2 refutes in inconsistenc* /it9 an* position applicant ta%es re& patentabilit*
, $. Ele#ents
o 5ine:uita(le conduct6 re:uires proo! o! t2res2old le7el o!/
 i. #aterialit&
 ii. intent to decei7e
 once t9res9old satisfied7 t/o factors are applied on sliding scale. JP Stevens.
o intent/ in!erred 5!ro# all t2e circu#stances6 -Critikon.
 reDuires >clear and convincing evidence? at trial. Revie/ for abuse of discretion on
appeal.
 loo% to& /9at patent %ne/ and /9en; materialit* of information; an* e(cuse3
e(planation of /9* not disclosed.
 Celd/ "ross ne"li"ence3 alone3 not enou"2 to s2o1 intent -Kingsdown Medi!al.
o #aterialit& 4 courts use more e(pansive definition t9an PAG $6.
, $6 ,
 materialit* N > an& in!or#ation t9at a reasona(le e@a#iner /ould be substantiall*
liBel& to consider i#portant in deicing /9et9er to allo/ an application as a patent?
0/'ron #olymer 2
o Result/ Entire Patent in7alidated. 5n >e(ceptional case?  attorne*<s fess.
INRINGEMENT & REMEDIE'
)III. In!rin"e#ent
, A. Clai# construction/ interpret scope o! t2e clai#s
o Markman 2earin"s/ consider (ot2 intrinsic e7idence -speci!ication3 prosecution.
and3 i! a#(i"uous3 e@ternal e7idence -e@perts3 dictionaries. -Philips.
 a matter of la/
, $. In!rin"e#ent Test/ does t9e accused invention 9ave all elements of t9e claims 0literal
infringement2 or t9eir equivalents 0Do'2:
o proceed element,b*,element7 as%ing if it is identical or an eDuivalent. If an* element not
t9e same7 no infringement.
, C. Doctrine o! E:ui7alents -DoE./ Winans3 Warner6Jenkinson
o /9et9er an >ingredient? is an eDuivalent depends on its& purpose7 function7 Dualities in
combination7 and interc9angeabilit* 0raver Tan'2
o t2e 5all ele#ents6 rule/ DoE in:uir& proceeds ele#ent4(&4ele#ent.
o test/ 5e:ui7alent6 = either/
 5triple identit& test6/ sa#e 5!unction3 1a&3 and resultM OR
 5insu(stantial di!!erences6 (et1een ele#ent in patented & accused
o eDuivalence evaluated at time of infringement
o no proof of intent reDuired.
o Li#its/ canIt use DoE to "et/
 12 matter disclosed but not claimed 0 Johnson 6 Johnson 2
 22 matter /it9in t9e prior art 0 "ilson )porting oods 2
 32 matter *ou gave up in prosecution 0P-'7 infra 2
, D. Prosecution Cistor& Estoppel -PCE./ can<t reclaim material *ou gave up via narro/ing
amendments in prosecution.
o a. PCE applies to an& narro1in" a#end#ent 5#ade to satis!& an& re:uire#ent o!
t2e Patent Act6 -$esto.. Presu#ption !or PCE 12en reason !or a#end#ent unclear.
-Warner6Jenkinson.
 includes amendments to avoid prior art as /ell as 1 112 reDuirements.
 if amendment 9as no clear reason7 can argue t9at it /as not >substantial reason
to patentabilit*.?
o (. W2en PCE applies3 re(utta(le presu#ption t2at all e:ui7alents are surrendered.
-$esto.. T2ree cases 12ere co#plete (ar does not appl&/
 12 eDuivalent /as unforeseeable at time of application
 22 rationale of amendment bares onl* >tangential relation? to eDuivalent
 32 >some ot9er reason? patentee could not reasonabl* 9ave been e(pected to draft
claim including eDuivalent
, E. E@peri#ental> Researc2 Use De!ense/
o a. co##on la1 de!ense/ e@peri#ental use onl& i! 5solel& !or a#use#ent3 to satis!&
idle curiosit&3 or !or strictl& p2ilosop2ical in:uir&.6 -Madey v. 0ke./
 > slig9test commercial use? /ill defeat t9e defense.
 > commercial use? N >use in %eeping /it9 legitimate business infringer?
 a >narro/ and strictl* limited? defense
, $ ,
o (. 8 ,E*-e.-*. e@e#ption/ covers uses >reasonabl* related to development and
submission of information to a federal regulator* bod* Iread& 4D5J?
 designed to speed up generic drug entr* into mar%et.
, . Indirect In!rin"e#ent/
o *. Induce#ent -8 ,E*-(../ 5acti7el& induce6 in!rin"e#ent
 directl* encourage infringement. ReDuires %no/ledge7 or at t9e least >s9ould
9ave %no/n.? =ust be active 0Tegal2 and after issuance.
o ,. Contri(utor& In!rin"e#ent -8 ,E*-c../
 12oe7er sells a 5co#ponent o! patented in7ention6
• i. constitutin" #aterial part o! t2e in7ention3
• ii. knowing co#ponent especiall& adapted to in!rin"e#ent AND
• iii. not a staple article suita(le !or su(stantiall& nonin!rin"in" use.
 Contributor* infringer must %no/ component if bot9 patented and infringing
0/ro II 2
, G. Di7ided In!rin"e#ent
o *. Under 8 ,E*-a./
 i2 across persons H reDuires one part* to 9ave control over ot9ers 0 B-C v.
#aymentech 2
 ii2 across nations H patent rig9ts are generall* territorial 0 Bro(n v. .uchesne 2
• +)A& Blac'berry case& >used in t9e )S? means location of t9e
beneficial use.
o ,. orei"n Acti7it& -8 ,E*-!. &-"../
 i. ,E*-!. liable if supplies or causes to (e supplied in or from t9e )S&
• 12 substantial portion of co#ponents of an inventionKto acti7el&
induce in!rin"e#entM OR
• ,. an& co#ponentK#ade especiall& to in!rin"e Iand 9as limitations of
contributor* infringement& %no/ledge7 no substantial noninfringing useJ
 ii. 8 ,E*-". ; /9oever /it9out aut9orit* i#ports into t9e )S or o!!ers to sell3
sells3 or uses 1it2in t2e U'/
• a product 12ic2 is #ade (& a process patented in t2e U'.
• )P.'SS t9e product is
o i2 materiall* c9anged b* subseDuent processes GR
o ii2 trivial and nonessential component of anot9er product.
, C. E@2austion/
o *. Repair> Reconstruction Doctrine/ Repair is not in!rin"in"3 (ut reconstruction is
-'ro #.. +ased on li%el* intentions of part* to sale.
o ,. E@2austion in General/ patenteeIs ri"2ts are e@2austed a!ter t2e !irst 7alid sale o!
a patented o(<ectM $UT/
 12 t9oug9 restrictions on sales are pro9ibited7 restrictions in licenses are GS.
 22 contracts associated /it9 sales restricting uses are GS7 if enforceable under
state contract la/.
 %anta H unclear /9et9er federal circuit precedent allo/ing sales to be
conditioned under patent la/ /ill stand.
IA. Re#edies
, *. In<unctions -8 ,T9./
, $! ,
o t2at usual !our !actor e:uita(le test !or 12et2er to issue an in<unction applies/ 12
irreparable 9arm; 22 no adeDuate remed* at la/; 32 balance of 9ards9ips; 42 t9e public
interest not disserved. -e"ay v. Mer!)*!hange.
o inEunction less li%el* /9en patentee a troll.
, ,. Da#a"es -8 ,TL./ shall be a/arded7 if proven.
o a. lost pro!its ; patentee pre!ers i! can pro7e t2e#. 5#aBe 12ole6 da#a"es.
 a >but for? approac9& /9at /ould patentee 9ave got if no infringement:
 Pandit !actors/ can get lost profits if can s9o/&
• 12 demand for patented product;
• 22 absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes;
o an*t9ing infringer could 9ave used t9at is comparable 0rain
#rocessing2
• 32 manufacturing and mar%eting abilit* to meet demand;
• 42 amount of profit 9e /ould 9ave made.
 T2e Entire MarBet )alue Rule& applies /9en patented t9e basis for demand.
o (. reasona(le ro&alties ; i! canIt pro7e lost pro!its
 based on >9*pot9etical negotiation? at t9e date of infringement
 #anduit suggests t9at t9e ro*alt* s9ould be e(tra,compensator*7 err on the side
of a higher royalty.
, 9. Will!ul In!rin"e#ent
o a. tre(le da#a"es under 8 ,TL onl& a7aila(le 12en in!rin"e#ent is 51ill!ul6
 #n re Seagate/ to s2o1 51ill!ul6 -recBless. need/
• 12 obEectivel* 9ig9 ris% of infringement
• 22 accused %ne/ of ris%7 or /as so obvious 9e s9ould 9ave %no/n.
 Knorr6"remse H determination based on >totalit* of t9e circumstances?
o (. ad7ice o! counsel de!ense
 no >adverse inference? for /illfulness if i2 invo%e t9e privilege re& opinions of
counsel7 or don<t see% t9e advice of counsel.
• /aiver does not e(tend to trial counsel 0)eagate2
 substantial defense to infringement /on<t necessaril* defeat liabilit*
o c. attorne&sI !ees -8 ,TK./
 available in e@ceptional circu#stances ? 0/illful infringement7 ineDuitable
conduct7 litigation misconduct2
, L. Patent MarBin"
o a. 8 ,TE/ no da#a"es 1it2out notice to t2e in!rin"er3 eit2er (&/ i. patent #arBin"M ii.
direct notice
 mar%ing reDuirement doesn<t appl* to met9od claims7 but 9ave to mar%
associated apparatus if possible 0Soverain So-tware2
o (. 8 ,J, !alse #arBin"/ if >/it9 intent of? >deceiving t9e public?7 actionable.
OTCER
A. Disclai#er3 Reissue3 Ree@a#
, A. disclai#er -8 ,K9.
o invalid claims made >/it9out deceptive intention? ma* be disavo/ed b* patentee
, $. Correction -88 ,KL;,KH. 4 available onl* for 5#inor6 or 5clerical6 errors
o 8 ,KL ; if PAG<s fault7 PAG ma* issue certification or correction
o 8 ,KK ; if applicant<s fault7 reDuires&
, $" ,
 i2 >clerical? or >t*pograp9ical? error made in good fait9
• must be able to correct from specification7 prosecution -Sperior $irepla!e<
 ii2 can<t introduce an* ne/ matter3 c9ange t9e intended scope of t9e claims
 iii2 c9anged claims onl* appl* to conduct after t9e correction
, C. Reissue -88 ,K*;,K,. H can fi( more serious errors t9at render t9e patent >/9oll* or partiall*
invalid?
o can get reissue for errors li%e&
 failure to meet 1 112 reDuirements
 claiming more or less t9an 9ad a rig9t to 0can add ne/7 narro/er claims2
o a. li#itations/
 i2 /9ole ne/ ree(amination7 no presumption of validit*.
 ii2 onl* patentee can reDuest reissue
 iii2 no ne/ matter can be claimed
 iv2 no deceptive intention b* patentee
 7. (roadenin" reissues onl& 1>in t1o &ears
• > recapture rule?& can<t use reissue to get material deliberatel* surrendered
during prosecution.
 7i. e@istin" users "et inter7ention ri"2ts
 vii2 reDuires notice to interested parties 0in litigation7 eg2
o (. Inter7enin" Ri"2ts -8 ,K,. !or $roadenin" Reissues& /9en infringing product /it9in
reissue but not original&
 >absolute? H rig9t to continue usingK4the specific thing so made5
 > eDuitable? H rig9t to continue using based on eDuit*7 reliance7 if >substantial
preparation?3 investment to/ard product.
, D. Ree@a#ination H tr* to /eed out >bad patents?
o a2 rig9t to submit prior art to PAG under 1 3#17 /9ic9 becomes part of t9e file.
o (. e@ parte/ ri"2t to c2allen"e 7alidit& o! patent3 solel& on 5patents or pu(lications6
anticipation "rounds7 b* t9ird part* or PAG sua sponte3
 ReDuest must raise a >ne/ and substantial? issue as to patentabilit*
 if PAG so decides7 t9en it orders a ree(amination proceeding
• reDuester 9as minimal participation 0ma%e a response27 no rig9t to appeal.
Patentee 9as rig9t to appeal.
 can<t add ne/ matter during ree(am7 or void entire claim 0 9uantum Corp .2
o c. inter partes/
 reDuester 0t9ird part*2 9as full rig9ts to be involved and participate in ree(amination
 A9ird part* gets rig9t to appeal.
• +ut& statute does allo/ for estoppel impact7 in later infringement suit7 for
issues t9at /ere raised or could 9ave been raised in ree(amination.
AI. Trade 'ecrec&
, A. Uni!or# Trade 'ecrec& Act H adopted in most states
o 5 trade secret6 N informationK.t9at&
 012 deri7es independent econo#ic 7alue.Ufrom not being generall* %no/n or
readil& ascertaina(le (&KIcompetitorsJ; 5PD
 022 is t9e subEect of reasona(le e!!orts7 under t9e circumstancesKto #aintain
its secrec&. 0confidentialit* agreements7 restriction of access.2
o 5 #isappropriation6 N
, 6# ,
 012 ac:uisition of a trade secret b* a person 12o Bno1s or s2ould Bno1 t9at t9e
trade secret /as o(tained (& i#proper #eans.
 022 disclosure or use of a trade secret a trade secret b* a person /9o Bne1 or
2ad reason to Bno1 t9at t9e trade secret /as ac:uired under a dut& to
#aintain its secrec&.
o no7elt& not re:uired !or trade secrec& -0ionne.
o can #isappropriate trade secrets &ou 2elped in7ent -0ionne.
o can (e 5ine7ita(le disclosure6 o! secrets in so#e cases -PepsiCo.
, $. non4co#pete a"ree#ents
o non,compete clause enforced7 but given >special scrutin*? b* court for >reasonableness?
and no financial oppression 0Gillette v. Williams2
o C5 does not enforce t9ese agreements on public polic* grounds.
, C. ederal Trade 'ecrec&/ T2e Econo#ic Espiona"e Act -EEA. -*T U'C 8 *T9*.
o provides federal criminal remed* for trade secrets.
o defines trade secrec* analogous to states.
o #ust co##it one o! pro2i(ited acts/ 012 stealsKa trade secret; 022 /it9out
aut9ori@ation copies...communicates7 or conve*s a trade secret; 032 receives7 bu*sK
%no/ing t9e same to 9ave been stolen; 0427 0$2 attempts or conspires to above.
o re:uires 5intent to con7ertUa trade secret6
, D. Pree#ption
o *. Patent la1 does not pree#pt state trade secrec& la1 -Kewanee (il.
o ,. (ut/ 'tate cannot con!er 5patent;liBe6 protection ai#ed at desi"n and utilitarian
ele#ents -"onito "oats. !or unprotecta(le #atter or e@pired patents -Sears:Comp!o.
 idea t9at restrictions on >rig9t to reverse engineer? scrutini@ed.
, 61 ,