Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Infringement
(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into
the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture,
combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a
contributory infringer.
(f)
patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as
an infringer.
(g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to
sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a
process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the
importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of
such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no
remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the noncommercial
use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate remedy under this
title for infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to sell, or
sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process will, for
purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after -
Discussion:
The test for whether a product embodies a patent is whether the product contains each and every
element of the claim.
Literal Infringement:
Direct Infringement: If the product does not embody or contain each and every element of the
claim or their equivalents, then it does not infringe.
Thus, if not literal infringement, a competitor may directly infringe under DOE.
Even though there may be no direct infringement (either literally or by equivalents), if there is
contributory (271(c)) or inducement (271(b)) of infringement then damages may be recovered.
INFRINGEMENT
If you don’t have permission from patentee to do what is patented – you infringe.
Find out:
1. Direct Infringement: Patentee may bring an action against a defendant who himself is
committing acts that infringe in and of themselves.
- Literal infringement: every limitation of the claim is found in the accused device
- under the doctrine of equivalents: the accused infringing device (or process) is an
“equivalent” to that claimed in the patent.
2. Indirect Infringement: The patentee may bring an action against a defendant whose
acts do not infringe in and of themselves, but that contribute to or induce acts of
infringement by some third party.
The difference between the two is entirely a matter of who the patentee is able to sue.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
1. Look at the claims themselves, both asserted and nonasserted to define the scope of the
patented invention.
a. Although words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a
manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the
term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.
2. It is always necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has
used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning.
a. The Specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the
claims or when it defines terms by implication. Specification is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
3. The court may also consider the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence
4. An analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim
term. In such circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence . . . .
1
a. In Vitronics, the court said that statements of others (for e.g. Experts) are extrinsic
evidence, and unrelated to the patent document
c. In Phillips en Banc, the Fed. Cir. Overrules the dictionary use under Texas
Digital,
i. The court rejected the notions that the patentee is entitled to the full range
of dictionary definitions,
ii. That dictionary definitions are presumed to be correct, and that the
patent’s own written description should only be consulted if the dictionary
definitions are unclear
iii. The claim terms can be defined “by implication” or through use,
iv. Interpreting the claims to uphold their validity was “of limited use.”
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENCE
The courts have found infringement when an accused infringing device (or process) is an
“equivalent” to that claimed in the patent. The rubric under which courts extend the scope
of a patentee’s right to exclude beyond the literal language of the patent claims has come to
be known as the “Doctrine of Equivalents” (or DOE).
- Intent of the infringer plays no role in the analysis of the DOE – innocent infringement
under DOE is infringement nonetheless, just as intent is irrelevant in determining literal
infringement.
1
- The proper time for evaluating equivalency – and thus knowledge of interchangeability
between elements – is at the time of infringement, not at the time the patent was issued.
- All limitation Rule: for infringement to exist under DOE, the accused device must
contain at least an equivalent for each claim limitation. Thus, the analysis is
limitation-by-limitation basis, not an overall invention analysis.
o Equivalency can exist when two components of the accused device perform a
single function of the patented invention --- equivalency can also exist when
separate claim limitations are combined into a single component of the
accused device.
o Dedication to the Public: The Fed. Cir. Has held that is a patent specification
discloses a particular equivalent, but the claim language as construed does not
literally encompass that equivalent, the unclaimed equivalent is considered
dedicated to the public and cannot serve as a basis for infringement (Johnson &
Johnson Assoc. v. RE Serv. Co.)
An amendment made to a patent claim during prosecution, if made for reasons of patentability,
will presumptively eliminate all equivalents between the original claim limitation and the
amended claim limitation.
The burden is on the patentee to show that the amendment does not surrender the particular
equivalent in question:
1
The patentee must show that at the time of the amendment one skilled in the art could not
reasonably be expected to have drafted a claim that would have literally encompassed the alleged
equivalent.
- The equivalent in question was not foreseeable at the time of the amendment
o The time when the narrowing amendment was made, and not when the
application was filed, is the relevant time for evaluating unforeseeability, for
that is when the patentee presumptively surrendered the subject matter in question
and it is at that time that foreseeability is relevant.
- The rationale underlying the amendment bore only a tangential relationship to the
equivalent in question; i.e. this criterion asks whether the reason for narrowing
amendment was peripheral, or not directly relevant, to the alleged equivalent; or
- SOME OTHER REASON -- Another reason exists why the patentee could not
reasonably have been expected to claim the insubstantial change in question.
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
ACTIVE INDUCEMENT
Statutes:
§ 271 (d): And, we meant it – it is not act of misuse to that that s it an act of infringement
2. Codifying Indirect Infringement – §§ 271 (b) & (c) were written to prevent the courts to rule
them out
Active Inducement: Where a party encourages or aids another to directly infringe a patent by
for example, providing instructions on how to practice a patented invention.
1. Direct Infringement
DEFENSE: AVOID INTENT, i.e., that there was no intent. The burden is on the patentee by
preponderance of evidence to demonstrate intent.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
Section § 271(c): concerns itself with sale of a component of a patented device or composition
or the sale of a component for use in practicing a patented process.
The component must be a non-staple item that is NOT “suitable for substantial noninfringing
use.
The seller must have knowledge that the component is “especially made or especially adapted
for use in an infringement of a patent.”
§ 271(c):
- Knowledge that the same is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of a patent.
1) Sale of a component of
a) A patented device;
b) A composition; or
ii) A seller must have knowledge that the component is “especially made or especially
adapted for use in an infringement of” a patent
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
“within the US” restriction of Section § 271(a): Fed. Cir. Decided that a “system” is
“used” where the system as a whole is put into service.
But for method claims, not all steps were performed within the US and so no
infringement.
Although, recognizing that Congress enacted § 271(f) to overrule DeepSouth, the court
noted that Deepsouth is still good law under 271(a), and a defendant will not be liable for
infringement under § 271(a) unless it made or sold a complete invention.
Liability under § 271(f)(2) requires only that the infringer “intend that such component
will be combined,” and that at no point does the statutory language require or suggest that
the infringer must actually combine or assemble the components.
1. Importation, in and of itself, into the United States of a product that is covered by a US
Patent –This is under 271(a)
2. Importation, into the U.S., of an unpatented product made by a process that is patented in
the US.
The PPAA (Process Patent Amendments Act) makes it an act of infringement to import, sell,
offer to sell, or use in this country a product that was made abroad by a process protected by
the U.S. patent. 35 USC 271(g).
1
The act, however, does not apply if the product made by the patented process is “materially
changed by subsequent processes.”
Thus, a product that is “made by” a patented process within the meaning of the statute ‘will . . .
not be considered to be so made after
35 U.S.C. § 271(g).
- If something in the patent that identifies a particular significance; if any change is in the
opposite direction – then the change can be considered as material
o If it would be possible or commercially viable to make a product but for the use of
the patented process
2. Inequitable Conduct
3. Inventorship/Ownership
4. Misuse
6. Shrink-Wrap/Bag-Wrap agreements
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
1
- Intent: Gross negligence is not standing alone enough to trigger inequitable conduct. The
involved conduct, viewed in light of all the evidence, including evidence indicative of
good faith . . . must indicate sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive.
INVENTORSHIP
- Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea
of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice
- Definite and permanent: when only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the
invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation
- Each of the joint inventors need not make the same type or amount of contribution to the
invention. Rather each needs to perform only a part of the task which produces the
invention.
- One does not qualify as a joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after
conception of the claimed invention.
1
- As a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as
plaintiffs in an infringement suit. Consequently, one co-owner has the right to impede
the other co-owner’s ability to sue infringers by refusing to voluntarily join in such
a suit.
- Section 262: In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of
a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United
States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and
without accounting to the other owners.
- Most employees agree to assign ownership rights in the invention to their employer as
part of an express contract; or, absent an express contract, as the “employed to invent”
exception
- An employer may obtain a “shop right” in the employees’s invention where the
employer contributed to the development of the invention. A “shop right” is a common
law doctrine that allows an employer to use an invention patented by one or more of its
employees without liability for infringement.
Invalidity
An issued patent is presumed valid, with the validity of each claim determined
independently. A challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing
evidence. It is the Federal Court, not the Patent Office, that is the final arbiter of patent validity.
For a patent claim to be held invalid over the prior art, the claim must be shown to be
anticipated by a prior art under section 102, or obvious in view of the prior art under section 103.
Anticipation is a question of fact. The Ultimate question of patent validity under 103 is one of
law, but relies on several factual inquiries.
1
For a prior art reference to anticipate a claimed invention, the reference must
i. expressly or under the principle of inherency describe each and every element of the
claim in a single prior art reference.
Under 102:
102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof
by the applicant for patent, or
(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the
United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States
before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed
under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this
subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application
designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English
language; or
102(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section
291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that
before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not
abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or
1
102(g)(2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country
by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining
priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates
of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one
who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the
other.
102(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
1. Proof of Conception:
a. The idea was a definite and permanent in the sense that it involves a specific
approach to a particular problem at hand – not a general research plan the inventor hopes to
persue.
b. The idea must be sufficiently precise that a skilled artisan could carry out the
invention without undue experimentation – inventor need not know that his invention will work
for conception to be complete.
Invention is suitable for its intended purpose. The first to conceive but 2nd to RTP require
Diligence, to get earlier date of invention.
First to RTP is the prima facie inventor, but a party who was second to reduce to practice
will be considered the first inventor if he can show that he was the first to conceive and exercised
reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice.
a. Constructive: when the patent application is filed. CRTP may occur even if the
applicant never built or tested his invention as long as the applicant satisfies 112.
b. ARTP: occurs when the invention shown to be suitable for its intended purpose.
1
The inventor must construct the invention, i.e., a prototype and test the invention to
determine if it works for its intended purpose.
Though, actual working conditions are not required – laboratory tests simulating actual
working conditions may be sufficienct.
One may use foreign based inventive activity to obtain a patent under 102(g)(1);
Foreign based inventive activity cannot be used as prior art to defeat patent rights outside
of the interference context.
KNOWN or USED by Others in THIS COUNTRY – by someone other than the inventor.
Some “publicity” dimension has been read in through case law, even though the statute
does not require “public use.” In Gayler, the invention may have been known or used by others,
but such knowledge or use will not anticipate the claimed invention if the prior knowledge or use
is not publicly available.
Public policy: favoring the person who is the first to disclose the invention to the public,
even though someone else may have made the discovery earlier. But 102(a) does not require
some affirmative act to bring the work to the attention of the public at large.
Why is knowledge and use limited to the U.S.? – it is difficult for Americans to enjoy
unpublished knowledge and uses if they are extant only in a foreign land.
Patent
A foreign patent to be prior art under 102(a), the document must disclose the nature of
the invention and is available to the public.
1
Inventive activity outside the U.S. cannot be used to defeat a patent, but can be used
to obtain a patent through an interference proceedings (102(g)(1)).
The inventive activity that can be used as prior art to defeat patent rights is limited under
102(g)(2) to activity in this country.
Even if the knowledge or use of the claimed invention is not publicly available, thus not
satisfying 102(a), they can be used under 102(g) if the invention was complete – i.e., conceived
and RTP, and not Abandoned, suppressed or concealed. While 102(a) requires public use or
knowledge, the 102(g) can be satisfied by a lower threshold of no ASC. There are two types of
ASC: Explicit and Inferential.
3. The cause of the resumption of activity (was the first inventor spurred by the second
inventor’s activity?)
4. Diligence: when the one party is first to conceive, and the other (second) is the first to
RTP.
Secret Art under 102(e): Patents and published applications are prior are only for what they
disclose, not what they claim. To compare claims – apply 102(g)(1) interference proceedings.
Under 102(e), a patent application can defeat novelty even though the document is inaccessible
to the public, including the inventor.
Under 102(e)(1), once a U.S. patent application is published in the U.S., it’s a prior art date is the
date of filing the application.
PCT application:
will have the prior art effect under 102(e)(1) as of its international filing date, which is the date
the PCT application was filed – even though the application was never subsequently filed in the
U.S.
Under 102(e)(2), Issued Patent can be a prior art as of its filing date. This applies to U.S. patent
applications that ultimately issues as Patents. If there is a provisional application, the effective
prior art date is the date of filing the provisional application.
1. experimental
2. under secrecy
1
Experimentation Criteria:
5. the extent of control the inventor maintained over the testing – most important
Market testing is not experimental use. But if industry custom (like shipping samples of food),
then ok.
On-Sale Bar
The offer must meet the level of an offer in the contract sense. There is no requirement that the
seller knew the exact nature of the invention sold, or the offer specifically identify all the
characteristics of the invention.
2. Proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other description of
the invention that were sufficiently specific
102(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an
inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country
prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or
inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the
United States, or
NON-OBVIOUSNESS
NONOBVIOUSNESS
2. Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained;
Secondary Considerations:
1. Commercial Success: Advertising not the cause of success, but the claimed invention
was.
3. Failure of others
5. Competitior’s prompt copying: strongest when there is evidence that the competitor
initially attempted to design around the patent
8. Unexpected results
1. TSM: there must be some teaching suggestion or motivation either in the prior art itself
or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the
prior art or combine the teachings of the prior art in the manner posited by the Examiner
3. The prior art must teach or suggest ALL the claim limitations.
I. The mere fact that the teachings of the prior art can be modified or combined does NOT
establish prima facie obvious – the prior art must suggest the desirability of the
combination.
II. That one of Ordinary Skill in capable of modifying or combining the teachings of the
prior art does not make the combination prima facie obvious.
IV. If Change the Principle of Operation of the prior art – not obvious
VI. Applicant’s discovery of the problem overcome by the invention, or the source of the
problem, may defeat prima facie obviousness.
1
- Whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problems
addressed;
AND
- If the reference is NOT within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.
§ 102(e)/103 Art
As a practical matter, everything under § 102 except non-analogous art should be counted under
§ 103.
§ 102(e) prior art is a candidate prior art under § 103, once the art is patented.
But after § 103(c) amendment, §§ 102(e), (f) and (g) are not prior art, if they are co-owned.
“Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more
of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 . . . shall not preclude patentability under this
section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention
was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same
person.
1
§ 102(G) AND § 102(F) PRIOR ART, WHEN NOT CO-OWNED, ARE ALSO CANDIDATE PRIOR ART UNDER §
103.
Under § 102(g):
iii. Guard against Hindsight Bias, but “rigid preventive rules that
deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . [not]
consistent . . .” with the law.
Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include:
KSR
KSR doesn’t quite like TSM, but doesn’t quite overrule. Threshold of proving obviousness has
been lowered; but where is the BAR?
TSM Test was “a helpful insight,” but the Court warned against “mere conclusory statements”
an called for both “articulate reasoning and consideration of “when prior art teaches away.”
“Where a skilled artisan merely pursues known options from a finite number of indentified,
predictable solutions, obviousness under 103 arises.”
“103 Bars patentability unless the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.”
In re Kubin
An obviousness finding was appropriate where the prior art contained detailed enabling
methodology for practicing the claimed invention, a suggestion to modify the prior art to practice
the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting that it would be successful.
1
But obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success.
Process Claims
The mere fact that a device or process utilizes a known scientific principle does not alone make
the device or process obvious.
Disclosure Requirement
1. Enablement: teaching
ENABLEMENT
Benchmark: PHOSITA
Test: Would a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation?
1) The Need for some experimentation does not defeat enablement, only undue experimentation
2) The enabling “use” requirement of 112 is different from the “useful” requirement of 101.
Factors relevant in evaluating description and enablement (at the time of filing)
o PTO assumes that one of the embodiments disclosed is the best mode
- Preference at the time of filing: cannot update later (if done = New Matter)
- If filed oversees first, look for Best Mode Violation at the time of filing or during
Litigation
1
- Purpose is to “restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time
concealing from the public preferred embodiments of their inventions which they have in
fact conceived.”
- Enablement requires subject matter in the possession of the public; Best Mode is
subjective knowledge
o Production Detail
The purpose:
. . . is broader than to merely explain how to make and use; the applicant must also
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he
or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the “written
description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed.
Two Purposes:
1
Thus, the principal role of the written description requirement is to ensure that later added
claim language has support in the specification as originally filed.
Challenging description in parent design application for Also wants to assume that
lack of written description but not enablement: the parent Design
application has
In Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar (1991), Vas-Cath was enablement, because to
not arguing that the parent Design application receive benefit of
lacked Enablement, but only that it lacked priority filing date
written description, because they wanted the
Design application remain as a valid prior art
(prior art requires that each and every element of
claim + enablement in a single reference – for
102).
A broad claim in Invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly indicates that the
invention is of a much narrower scope.
Genus is not entitled to an earlier filing date when the specification disclosed “only two
species of cups.”
Requirements:
4. Inventor’s broad claim is insufficient when the specification does not show that
the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
1
5. Broad claim is invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly indicates that
the invention is of a much narrower scope.
Purposes:
2) A distinctly drafted claim distinguishes the invention from the prior art; i.e. it sets forth what
exactly the invention is
The Law:
Where there is an equal choice between a broader and a narrower meaning of a claim . . .
the notice function of the claim . . . [is] best served by adopting the narrower meaning.
DISCLOSURE IN BIO-TECH
b) In Amgen v. GI, the court rejected Amgen’s claims directed to broad classes for failure to
show how to make the many members of the class in a way that will predictably be
similar to each other and different from what is outside the claim (an enablement
rejection, though sounds like it relates to written description-type concerns).
c) “at least about” is indefinite when nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or
prior art provides any indication as to what range of specific . . . is covered by the term
“about”
d) When “about” is ok to use: “stretching . . . at a rate exceeding about 10% per second –
NOT USED to RECAPTURE range.
2. Conception Requires:
a. The idea must be definite and permanent in the sense that it involves a specific
approach to the particular problem at hand (not just a general research plan the
inventor hopes to pursue);
b. It must be sufficiently precise that a skilled artisan could carry out the invention
without undue experimentation – inventor need not know that his invention will
work for conception to be complete;
3. No Conception
a. Factual uncertainty:
a. Since January 1, 1996, (WTO date), applicants can rely on foreign inventive
activity to prove date of invention in a WTO country.
b. Since December 8, 1993, (NAFTA date), applicants can rely on foreign inventive
activity to prove a date of invention in a NAFTA country.
outside of the interference context. Inventive activity that can be used as prior
art to defeat patent rights in limited under 102(g)(2) to activity “in this
country.”
UTITLITY
Utility requires that it is:
1. Specific
2. Substantial
3. Credible
PTO Guidelines:
1. . . . a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention
is useful based on the characteristics of the invention (e.g., properties or applications of a
product or process), and
2. The utility is specific, substantial, and credible. The skilled artisan assesses credibility
based on the disclosure and “any other evidence of record.” If the Examiner finds that
specific and substantial utility is lacking credibility, he must reject the applicaton
under 101 and 112.
Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point-where specific benefit
exists n currently available form—there is insufficient justification for permitting an
applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.
2. Only after the PTO provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art
would reasonably doubt the asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant
to prove utlity.