statutory bars & presumption of validity
DESCRIPTION
Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity. Prof Merges Patent Law – 9.29.2011. Agenda. Finish Dow – 102(g)(2), prior invention of another as prior art: two issues Introduction to Statutory Bars Compare novelty/anticipation (102(a)) to statutory bars (102(b)). Park - Dow. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity
Prof Merges
Patent Law – 9.29.2011
![Page 2: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Agenda
• Finish Dow – 102(g)(2), prior invention of another as prior art: two issues
• Introduction to Statutory Bars
• Compare novelty/anticipation (102(a)) to statutory bars (102(b))
![Page 3: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Park - Dow
C: late August, 1984
R to P: 9/13/1984
AVI Employees
March 3, 1984: R to P (C?)
![Page 4: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2)
(g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] in interference and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed . . .”
(g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”
![Page 5: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Prior User Right• Under the new law, inventors who
commercially use an invention more than a year before another inventor files have a DEFENSE to infringement
• Not invalidating prior art; a “personal” defense – not transferable in and of itself
![Page 6: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
New 35 USC 273‘‘(1) such person, acting in good faith,
commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use; and (2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of either [filing or public disclosure]
![Page 7: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Statutory Bars § 102(b), (c), (d)
An inventor loses the right to patent if, more than one year prior to the applicant’s filing, the invention was:• patented by another anywhere• patented by the applicant in a foreign country-- § d• described in a printed publication anywhere• in public use in the US• on sale in the US
Abandonment, § c.
![Page 8: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Schematic Representation of § 102
§ 102 (b): Statutory Bars[1] No patent if, more than one year prior to application,
invention[A] patented or[B] described in printed publication[C] anywhere, or
[2] invention --[A] in public use or [B] on sale
[C] in this country.
![Page 9: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Statutory Bar Dates
One Year Grace PeriodDec. 20, 1996
PatentApplication
JonesJones
Oct. 1995 Dec. 20, 1995
Jones
§102(b) hurdle
![Page 10: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Statutory Bar Dates
One Year Grace Period
Dec. 20, 1996
PatentApplication
JonesJones
Oct. 1995 Dec. 19, 1995
Jones
Dec. 19, 1996
Section 102(b) BarOne Day Gap
![Page 11: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Egbert v. Lippmann
• Why not a novelty case?
• What are the essential facts?
![Page 12: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Corset Springs
![Page 13: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Egbert (cont’d)
• Conception, Jan – May 1855
• R to P: May, 1855 (?)
• 1858: Second pair of springs
• Patent app filed: March 1866
![Page 15: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Egbert
• Only 1 used – enough?
• “Non-informing public use”
–Why enough to constitute a bar?
![Page 16: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Justice William Woods
![Page 17: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• Sturgis evidence – p. 524
–Why did Barnes introduce it?
–How did it affect the case?
![Page 18: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Conclusion
• “The inventor slept on his rights for 11 years . . .” – p. 525
![Page 19: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Samuel F. Miller, on Court 1860-1890: dissent in Egbert
![Page 20: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Moleculon Research
• When did Nichols invent his cube?
• Who saw/used it?
• When was a pat app filed?
![Page 21: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Public Use/On Sale
• What was CBS’ public use evidence?
– Why not successful?
– P 530
• Contra Egbert?
![Page 26: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
In TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965 (Fed.Cir.1984), the inventor was a dentist who installed the inventive orthodontic appliance in several of his patients. Although the inventor had not obtained any express promise of confidentiality from his patients, this court did not consider the use "public" because the dentist-patient relationship itself was tantamount to an express vow of secrecy. Id. at 972.
![Page 27: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Metallizing Engineering
![Page 28: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Judge Learned Hand
![Page 29: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
What is the critical date?
•Aug. 6, 1941
![Page 30: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
What is the main issue?
• Sale of output from a machine does not disclose the machine to the public; is it nevertheless a “public use”?
–Compare: Peerless Roll, Gillman v Stern
![Page 31: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Holding: YES
•Extension of monopoly is the key policy; public use found here, patent invalid: p. 535
![Page 32: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
§§ 102 (a) and (b) Prior Art Chart
102: Was Invention: By: In: Before: If yes:
a known others U.S. Date of invention Na used others U.S. Date of invention Oa patented others any country Date of inventiona published others any country Date of invention Pb patented anybody any country 1 year prior to filing Ab published anybody any country 1 year prior to filing Tb in public use anybody U.S. 1 year prior to filing Eb on sale anybody U.S. 1 year prior to filing N T
![Page 33: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Presumption of Validity
• Microsoft v. i4i,
• Scope of the presumption of validity
![Page 34: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
i4i
• Statute: “A patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity ... rest[s] on the party asserting such invalidity.”
• 35 USC § 282
![Page 35: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Microsoft argument
• Defense centered on i4i’s prior sale of a software program known as S4.
• The parties agreed that, more than one year prior to the filing of the i4i patent application, i4i had sold S4 in the United States
![Page 36: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Point of contention
• Did the S4 software sold to the public before the critical date embody the claimed invention?
• Testimony of inventors key; no documentary evidence remaining
![Page 37: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Key fact: on-sale evidence never presented to PTO
• This is typical
• Often uncovered only at trial, in litigation
![Page 38: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Categories of prior art
• The more obscure, the more the information about a prior art reference is difficult to find or held only by the inventor, the more expensive it is to find
• Will only be found in litigation; in some cases, only in high stakes litigation
![Page 39: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Interpreting the statute in i4i• Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering
Laboratories, Inc., 293 U.S. 1 (1934) (Cardozo, J.)
• Justice Cardozo wrote for a unanimous Court that “there is a presumption of validity, a presumption not to be overthrown except by clear and cogent evidence.”
![Page 40: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
That old Cardozo magic . . .
• “[O]ne otherwise an infringer who assails the validity of a patent fair upon its face bears a heavy burden of persuasion, and fails unless his evidence has more than a dubious preponderance.”
• Book supp. at 55
![Page 41: Statutory Bars & Presumption of Validity](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081420/56815cda550346895dcae35d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
KSR Argument
[H]ad Congress intended to drop the heightened standard of proof where the evidence before the jury varied from that before the PTO—and thus to take the unusual and impractical step of enacting a variable standard of proof that must itself be adjudicated in each case… — we assume it would have said so expressly.