I.

INTRODUCTION TO PATENTS

A. Patents Generally – Patents are grants of rights creating a limited monopoly to

encourage the production of inventions – processes, machines, and composition of
matter. The right is not to create or do something, but rather, the right to exclude
others from doing so.

B. Constitutional and Federal Statutory Authority

1. U.S. Const. Article I, § 8, cl. 8 – [to] promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

2. The Federal Patent Statute: 35 U.S.C. et seq – Patent law is exclusively federal
and thus states cannot have laws covering subject matter even relatively close to
the patent statute.

C. Theory of Patent Law – A patent gives its owner exclusive rights in an invention. It
can be viewed as an agreement between the inventor and the public that in return for
making and fully disclosing the invention to the public, the public grants the inventor
the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the
invention in the Unite States or from importing into the United States for a limited
period of time.

1. Purely Utilitarian Rationale based on Incentives – Inventions are public goods

that are costly to make and difficult to control once they’re released. Without
patent protection, not enough incentive to invest in creating, developing, and
marketing new products

2. Patents Create Incentives For…

i) Invention - Can spend resources and be protected

ii) Disclosure/Documentation - Increases public knowledge
iii) Commercialization - Incentives inventors to do something with their patents,
i.e. they can sell their products without fear of infringement. (need to
commercialize to re-coup costs of R&D and patent prosecution)
iv) Investment in R&D
v) Design-Around - Encourage finding new ways/methods of accomplishing a
goal; can’t use same method, must innovate. This may be the most
important incentive because it is often the second or third inventor is the one
that gets it right / perfects it for public consumption.

3. Costs of Patents – Huge administrative costs; impedes follow up research,

restrain innovation.

D. Structure of a Patent – Every patent is numbered for identification purposes. It also

includes the following…

1. Specification – The primary part of a patent is the specification. It contains the

description of the invention.

i) Front page – Includes title, inventor, publishing date, assignee (company

that controls patent rights), application number, filing date, class numbers
(each patent classified by technological area for ease of finding preemption),
 field of search (purposes of infringement suits and whether background
search was insufficient), references cited, and examiners of the patent.

ii) Abstract – Summary of the invention written by the applicant (very

strategic). Should include key words (for visibility of others searchers),
describe as vaguely and broadly as possible for maximum potential
protection from copies/improvements, but as specific as necessary as to not
encompass prior patents (and thus to invalidate your patent).

iii) Written Description – Textual description of the patent including four

components…
a. Description of Technical Field
b. Background of the Invention
c. Summary of the Invention
d. Detailed Description of the Invention

2. Drawings – The most illustrative drawing must be included on the title page.
Other drawings help in the description of the invention.

3. Claims – Claims are the textual description that form the basis for the patent
grant and provide the boundaries of the invention. They describe the invention’s
structural elements (for a product claim) or steps (for a process claim) and the
rest of the document supports them. Claims are evaluated individually and the
document does not succeed or fail based on one claim.

E. The U.S. Patent System – There are two distinct

phases of the U.S. Patent System…

1. Prosecution Phase (also called Examination;

usually lasts about 2 yrs) – During this stage,
the USPTO examines the patent for validity.
At the end of the stage, an “issued patent” is
given to the inventor, which is required for
enforcement.

2. Enforcement Phase – During the enforcement state, private actions (civil suits,
enforced by each individual patentee), are litigated under federal law in any
federal district court that has proper personal jurisdiction. All appeals go to the
Federal D.C. Circuit Court.

i) Forum Selection Choices – Forum selection is very important in patent

enforcement. Thus, patent enforcement actions should be filed in
jurisdictions where there is a lot of relevant data, where there are judges who
have experience in patents, in a region with an economy based on this type of
invention (product) for jury selection purposes (i.e. either where there are
plenty of engineers or none in jury pool).

a. District of Delaware – The most popular place to file is in the federal

district of Delaware. This is because it is a relatively small district with a
limited amount of judges with a relative amount of expertise.

b. Eastern District of VA – So dubbed the “rocket docket,” many people

like to file in EDVA as well because the short time does not allow for a
lot of preparation time for the infringer.
 ii) The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – Unlike the regional circuit courts,
the Federal Circuit has unlimited geographic jurisdiction nationwide with
limited subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the court enjoys exclusive
jurisdiction over relating to patents as well as over cases in several other
areas too.

a. Purpose – Consistent application of the law, achieved by eliminating the

opportunity for forum-shopping would have a direct and salutary effect
on industrial innovation and thereby on the nation’s technological
strength and international competitiveness.

i. Reasoning – Circuit-splits are extremely costly; forces quicker

development of jurisprudence to keep up with technological
innovations; avoids forum shopping on the basis of substantive law

ii. Criticisms/Concerns – By reducing circuit splits, reduces ability of

Supreme Court to keep an eye on development of incorrect law.
Also, DC Circuit has become overly-favorable to patent law (i.e.
whenever patent law conflicted with other types, e.g. antitrust, the
other law loses).

b. Judicial Discretion Unavoidable – The shaping of the patent law is to

an exceptional degree in the hands of the judiciary, for in patent cases a
relatively simple statutory law is applied to an extraordinary complexity
of factual circumstances.

3. Timing – The system changed from 17 years after issue to 20 YEARS AFTER
FILING to encourage people to do their patents correctly and to dissuade actions
that would delay the patent leaving the USPTO.

F. Requirements for Patentability

1. Five Requirements for Patents…

(1) FULL DISCLOSURE (§ 112)

(2) NOT SUBJECT TO A STATUTORY BAR (§ 102) – E.g. Atomic Energy

Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the
utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.

(3) NOVELTY (§ 102) – An invention cannot be patented if: “(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 “(b) the invention was patented or described
in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale
in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the
United States”

(4) NONOBVIOUS (§ 103) – The subject matter sought to be patented must be

sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may
be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of
technology related to the invention.

(5) WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER (§ 101)

 2. Validity Analysis

i) Occurs twice…
a. Prosecution phase (by USPTO ‘Examiners’) –
b. Enforcement phase – Defense to infringement (by Courts) … but,
‘presumption of validity’

ii) 50% Patents Eventually Declared Invalid – This is not to be completely

unexpected, however, because only the marginal cases eventually end up in
trial.

G. Patent Prosecution Basics: Key Points about Prosecution

1. Ex Parte Process – Secret until publication; there is nobody to argue with except
for the examiner

2. Private/secret (for 24 months)

3. Procedures allow “continuing” applications

a. Around 90% of all applications eventually result in a patent
b. Internal procedural incentives to issue patents – Part of the pay of a
patent examiner is how many patents are processed per month

4. Two-Stage Appeals
i) Board Patent Appeals and Interferences (Administrative Board)
ii) Federal Circuit (also: District DC + Fed. Cir.)

5. Reexamination (ex parte, inter-partes) – Patents can be re-examinable. Done

at the discretion of the patent office and is rarely accepted.
II. SUBJECT MATTER OF PATENTS

A. Subject Matter Test – In the language of the patent statute §101, any person who
“invents or discovers any new and useful PROCESS, MACHINE,
MANUFACTURE, or COMPOSITION OF MATTER, or any NEW AND USEFUL
IMPROVEMENT thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and
requirements of the law. Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the
limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that
LAWS OF NATURE, PHYSICAL PHENOMENA, and ABSTRACT IDEAS are not
patentable subject matter. Similarly, a patent cannot be obtained upon a MERE
IDEA or SUGGESTION.

B. Patentable Subject Matter

1. Process – A mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It

is an act, or series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed
and reduced to a different state or thing.

2. Machine – A machine is an instrument that consists of parts or elements that are

organized to cooperate, when set in motion, to produce a definite predetermined
result.

3. Manufacture – The production of articles for use from raw or prepared

materials by giving those materials new forms, qualities, properties or
combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery.

4. Composition of Matter – The Supreme Court has defined compositions of

matter as “all compositions of two or more substances and … all composite
articles, whether they be the results of chemical union or of mechanical mixture,
or whether they be gases, fluids, powders, or solids.”

C. UNpatentable Subject Matter

1. Products of Nature and/or Physical Phenomena – Naturally occurring articles

may not be patented, even by the person who is the first to discover them in
nature.

i) Limitation: Changed in Significant Way – However, a naturally occurring

article may become the subject of a patent if the applicant has changed it in a
significant way, giving it characteristics that it would not develop naturally.
In that case, it has been transformed into a man-made article.

a. Genetically Engineered Live Matter – The Supreme Court rejected the

idea that Congress intended to limit utility patents to inanimate matter
because Congress intended to make utility patents available for
“everything under the sun that is made by man.” Thus, genetically
engineered life forms that had characteristics that they would not have
had in nature could be the subject of a utility patent.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) – Chakrabarty developed a new species of bacterium

capable of metabolizing hydrocarbons in a manner unknown in naturally-occurring
organisms. The microorganisms showed great promise in the treatment of oil spills.
Chakrabarty applied for a patent. PTO denied the application on the basis that the
microorganisms were unpatentable products of nature. Held: Live, man-made
microorganisms may be patented. A live, man-made microorganism is a non-naturally
occurring composition and thus may be patented. The fact that they are living/nonliving
 is irrelevant for purposes of patent law. While it is true that naturally-occurring products
may not be patented, a genetically-engineered microorganism is not naturally occurring.

b. Purified Natural Substances – A natural substance taken from its

original setting AND altered in any way – including purification – is a
new entity and therefore patentable.

Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co. (1911) – Parke-Davis was the assignee of
patents granted for adrenalin, a purified substance of significant medical use. Mulford
made a similar product and was sued for infringement. Mulford claimed that the patent
was invalid because it was only for a degree of purity and not for anew “composition of
matter.” Held: When a person extracts a product and changes it to make it available for
use, the product becomes a new thing commercially and therapeutically and is therefore
patentable. No product is patentable, however, if it merely separated by the patentee from
is surrounding materials and remains unchanged.

c. Combinations of Naturally Occurring Substances – A combination of

naturally-occurring substances is not inherently patentable. Rather, such
a combination is only patentable when the combination causes the
substances to function in a way that they would not achieve separately.

2. Abstract Ideas & Laws of Nature – The Supreme Court has stated that laws of
nature and abstract ideas may not in themselves be the subject matter of a
patent.

i) Rationale – There are two reasons for this rule. First, a person does not
create these things – they exist independently in nature and are discovered.
Second, granting exclusive rights in such basic building blocks of invention
would pose an undue roadblock to further invention by others.

ii) Mathematical Algorithms – A mathematical algorithm (procedure for

solving a type of math problem) is like a mathematical formula or law of
nature and thus generally cannot be patented. However, under some limited
circumstances, mathematical algorithms are patentable.

a. Test for Patentability – Whether the applicant is claiming an algorithm

in the abstract (which could constitute an unpatentable abstract idea) or
whether the claim is for a useful application of an algorithm, which
results in a “useful, concrete, and tangible result.”

Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) – Benson applied for a patent for an algorithm used to
convert binary-coded decimal numbers to equivalent pure binary numbers on digital
computers. The mathematical procedures required by the algorithm could be done by any
existing computer or by a person. The PTO denied the claim. Held: A mathematical
algorithm transforming digital numbers into binary code is not patentable. The claim is
too abstract and therefore too broad, so that a wide range of activity would infringe on a
patent of this scope. The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical
application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the
judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly preempt the mathematical formula
and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.

i. How is software patentable after Gottshalk? – After this case, to

patent software it must do something useful. It must be tied to some
sort of tangible application.

b. Business Models – Business models are patentable subject matter if they

constitute a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or
calculation that produces a useful, concrete and tangible result. Patent
 not for algorithm, it is for the process of using the algorithm for the
result.

State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Services (Fed Cir. 1998) – Signature
owned a patent that covered the “Hub and Spoke” business method/data processing
system It facilitated an investment structure whereby mutual funds (spokes) pool their
assets in an investment portfolio (hub) organized as a partnership. State Street tried to
license the system, but when negotiations broke down, they brought a declaratory
judgment action claiming that the patent was invalid. Held: The claim stated patentable
subject matter even though the invention was directed solely at crunching numbers. The
court reasoned: “the transformation of data, representing discrete dollar amounts, by a
machine through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes
a practical application of a mathematical algorithm…because it produces a useful
concrete and tangible result – a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and
reporting purposes.”

i. Rationale – The Court decided that business models like the “Hub-
and-Spokes” method are patentable because (1) there has never been
a per se rule against patenting business models; (2) this is not an
abstract mathematical algorithm because it is tied to a specific
process with a “useful, concrete and tangible result”

ii. Aftereffects – State Street opened the flood gates and many claims
have come about directly because of the case including patenting
derivatives, reverse auctions, accounting techniques, etc.

c. Rationalizing the Various Cases– Gottshalk & State Street Bank are
difficult to rationalize. One possible reason for the differing results is
that times have changed and business models have been recognized as
extremely valuable and important, thus deserving of protection.

3. Improvements or Derivative Uses – An inventor may patent an “improvement”

of a product or process. This ability, however, creates a situation where there
may be multiple inventors claiming rights to an improved invention (i.e. I1 to
underlying invention, I2 to improvement). The conflicting “blocking patents”
force the inventors to enter into an agreement to produce the improved invention
free from infringement claims. This illustrates technical nature patent rights:
patent holder does not have the exclusive right to make, use, sell, offer, or import
the invention. Rather, he has the right to exclude others from doing those things.
III. UTILITY REQUIREMENT

A. Useful: The Requirement of “Utility” – 35 U.S.C. §101 authorizes patents for

things that are “new and useful.” The patent utility requirement is derived from this
provision.

1. “Utility” Defined – Utility will be found when there is an IDENTIFIABLE,

SPECIFIC BENEFIT for the invention or, in the case of a process, the product
of the process. Merely demonstrating that an invention may lead to further
invention is not sufficient. However, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the
invention works better than alternative methods of accomplishing its particular
goal or function.

i) Rationale – To give an inventor exclusive monopoly rights in a product

without showing a specific benefit, one could prevent others from
discovering any benefits of that product. Also, there are substantial
transaction costs associated with reviewing and granting useless patents.

ii) Potential Cost of Utility Requirement – Some areas of science and

technology that by their inherent nature are less predictable (e.g. bio-
sciences). The utility requirement will hurt those areas (and society) because
these people will have to wait longer to patent. This is because a researcher
might be forced to choose between publishing the results from a study (and
thereby contributing to the public realm of scientific knowledge) and keeping
the results secrete (to preserve patent rights under the statutory bar).

2. Potential Value Insufficient – A process or product with no current known use,

but which might prove useful in future scientific research, lacks the requisite
utility needed for patentability. Utility means that a process has an identifiable,
specific benefit and not merely some potential for benefit.

Brenner v. Manson (1966) – Manson sought to patent a chemical process for synthesizing certain
steroidal compounds. Although these compounds were not in themselves beneficial, they were
possibly useful in cancer research. The PTO denied the application for lack of utility. Mason
appealed. Held: The basis quid pro quo of patent law is that a monopoly is granted in exchange for
a finished thing with substantial utility. A product or process useful as the subject of research does
not fit this requirement. Further, to allow a monopoly on the research stage of innovation might
well inhibit such innovation, in direct contravention to the purposes of patent law. Here, the
process in question is capable only of synthesizing products suitable for research, not useful in
themselves. The process is therefore not patentable.

3. Three Types of Utility

(1) General Utility – Centers on whether an invention is operable or capable of

any use. The inquiry here is whether the invention as claimed can really do
anything (e.g. perpetual motion machine not allowed)

(2) Specific Utility – Whether the invention works to solve the problem it is
designed to solve. The focus here is on the operability of the invention to
serve its intended purpose.

(3) Beneficial or Moral Utility – Whether the intended purpose of the invention
has some minimum social benefit, or at least is not completely harmful or
deleterious. This is no longer a requirement because it invited dangerous
value judgments.
 Juicy-Whip v. Orange Bang – D patented a juice dispenser that tricks people into thinking
that they’re drinking the juice from a viewable tank when really it’s in hidden tanks
underneath the counter. Held: The Ct. said that trickery is not immoral so it’s OK. The benefit
of an invention need not be socially beneficial and an invention whose purpose is to deceive
consumers may meet the utility requirement. This effectively got rid of any “beneficial” or
“moral” utility requirement for patents.

4. LOW Threshold Requirement – The utility requirement is not a high

threshold. Brenner is an atypical case and the general approach is to require only
an assertion of “specific and substantial utility.”
IV. NOVELTY REQUIREMENT, STATUTORY BARS, AND PRIORITY

A. 35 U.S.C. § 102. – A person shall be entitled to a patent unless…

(a) Novelty – 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,

(b) Statutory Bars – the invention was patented or described in a printed

publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
the united states,

(c) -- (f) omitted

(g) Priority …

B. Novelty – The novelty requirement bars a patent for any invention publicly known on
the date of invention.

1. Novelty Test – The applicant is not entitled to patent an invention that, on the
inventor’s date of invention…

(1) Was KNOWN to the public or in PUBLIC USE in the UNITED STATES,

OR

(2) Had been PATENTED or PUBLISHED ANYWHERE, including foreign

countries.

2. Prior Public Use: Ordinary Commercial Use is Sufficient – The public use of a
product in the United States anticipates the claim and makes the invention
unpatentable. Public use outside the United States, however, is not anticipation.
A use need not be obvious or even accessible to the public to qualify as public
use. Rather, an ordinary commercial use of the invention (i.e. no steps taken to
hide the invention) is sufficient.

Rosaire v. National Lead Co. (1955) – Rosaire claimed to have invented a new method for oil
prospecting and held two patents on which National Lead had allegedly infringed. NL claimed that
the patents were invalid because the process had been known and used by Teplitz for Gulf Oil prior
to the date that Rosaire first conceived of the invention. Rosaire claimed that the work of Teplitz
was an unsuccessful experiment which was not published or patented and therefore did not give the
public the benefit of the experimental work. Held: An invention is not patentable if it was known
or used by others before the patentee’s invention. When the invention is used openly in the
ordinary course of business, then the public use is satisfied for novelty purposes. The work was
done openly and in the ordinary course of the activities of Gulf Oil and therefore no further
affirmative act (i.e. publication or patent) was necessary to bring the work to the attention of the
public at large.

i) Secret Use – Secret use by an inventor constitutes a public use. However,

secret use by a third party not controlled by the inventor, even if commercial,
does not count as public use. This is b/c when a patentee uses an invention
secretly and sells its derivative goods, the patentee is presumably trying to
extend his monopoly term. If a third party secretly uses the invention, any
monopoly is not extended
 W.L. Gore & Assocs v. Garlock (Fed. Cir. 1983) – The machine that made Gortex was
secret. However, its products were sold on the open market. Accordingly, the court found that
this did not constitute secret use (i.e. public use = patent denied) When a patentee uses an
invention secretly and sells its derivative goods, the patentee is presumably trying to extend his
monopoly term.

3. Prior Publication: Reasonably Accessible to a PHOSITA – Prior publication

encompasses any medium in any country that makes prior art publicly
accessible. It need not be widespread and includes foreign patents or esoteric
journals if they are reasonably accessible to one ordinarily skilled in the art
(PHOSITA) and enables one to make and use the invention.

4. Accidental Invention Does NOT Anticipate – Accidental anticipation does not

serve to invalidate a patent. Where an accidental producer was not aware of the
product and did not attempt to produce it, the first accidental production does not
bar another inventor’s patent on the invention of the product. This is because
courts want to award patent rights to those people who understand and truly
convey the benefits on society.

C. Statutory Bars (Loss of Rights) – The statutory bars in §102(b) are a time limit
linked to the date of the filing of the patent application. §102(b) says that once the
invention becomes public knowledge, the inventor has one year to file a patent
application. Thus, the critical date is the date of application minus one year.

1. Statutory Bar Test – The patent must be denied if the invention was…

(1) PATENTED or DESCRIBED in a PRINTED PUBLICATION in this or a

foreign country or in

OR

(2) In PUBLIC USE or ON SALE in this country,

…more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the
United States

2. Rationale – The statutory bars give inventors a strong incentive to file patent
applications promptly. Once an invention has been in unrestricted public use and
knowledge, others may have a reliance interest, and the statutory bars limit the
effects of this reliance. The rule also prevents an inventor from delaying an
application with the hopes of effectively gaining a longer period of protection.

3. Patent or Publication: Accessible to PHOISTA – The one year period begins if

the invention is patented or otherwise published anywhere in the world. Even a
foreign patent or an esoteric journal may start the clock ticking as long as the
reference is accessible to one skilled in the relevant art.

i) Timing of Publication – A publication becomes “public” as of the date it

becomes accessible to at least one member of the general public. Thus, an
academic publication has an effective date as prior art when it becomes
cataloged in a library because it is theoretically available to anyone who was
truly interested.

In re Hall (Fed. Cir. 1986) – Hall’s application for a patent was rejected because a doctoral
thesis was available as a “printed publication” more than one year prior to the application.
Hall appealed claiming that there was no evidence that the dissertation was properly indexed in
the library catalog prior to the critical date and that, even if it were, the presences of a single
 catalogued thesis in one university library does not constitute sufficient accessibility of the
publication’s teachings to those interested in the art exercising reasonable diligence. Held:
Once an invention is in the public domain, it is not longer patentable. The dissertation had an
effective date as prior art when it was cataloged in the library because it was theoretically
available to anyone who was truly interested (i.e. PHOSITA). Competent evidence of the
general library practice may be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a thesis
becomes accessible.

4. Public Use: Single Use With No Limitations– An invention is in “public use” if

a person uses the completed, operative invention in the way the invention was
intended to be used and under no limitation, restriction, or obligation to keep the
invention secret. Even one use will be sufficient.

i) Open Public View is Irrelevant – Inventions that by their nature are only
capable of being used where they cannot be seen are considered to be used
“in public” if the inventor allows them to be used without any restrictions. It
is irrelevant whether or the use was open to public view.

Egbert v. Lippmann (1881) – In 1855, Barnes gave a set of corset-springs he had created to
his girlfriend (Egbert) who had complained that hers were always breaking. She wore these
springs for many years. In 1886, after the principle of his design had become the standard in
the industry, Barnes applied for a patent. Lippmann denied any infringement claiming that the
patented invention had, with the consent of Barnes, been publicly used for more than two years
prior to his application for the patent. Held: If an inventor, having made his device, gives or
sells it to another, to be used by the donee or vendee, without limitation or restriction, or
injunction of secrecy, and it is so used, such use is public even though the use and knowledge
of the use may be confined to one person.

ii) Exceptions: Personal and Experimental Uses – An inventor’s private,

personal use of his invention or a third person’s use which is primarily
experimental in purpose will not trigger the running of the statutory period
either. However, the primary purpose the use must be experimental – to test
the invention from a technological standpoint – rather than to test or develop
a market.

City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Company (1877) – Nicholson had obtained a patent for the
process of constructing a wooden pavement and claimed that the City of Elizabeth had
infringed. CE claimed that the invention had been in public use, with his consent and
allowance, for six years on an avenue in Boston before he applied for a patent and contended
that this use constituted an abandonment of the pretended invention. Nicholson claimed that
the pavement in Boston was 75 feet and constructed to ascertain its durability, and therefore
did not constitute abandonment. Held: The experimental use of an invention by the inventor
himself, or by any person under his direction, has never been regarded as a public use.
Nicholson merely intended the pavement as an experiment, to test its usefulness and durability.
So long as he did not voluntarily allow others to make it or use it, and so long as it was not on
sale for general use, he kept the invention under his control and did not lose rights to patent.

a. Factors Relevant in Proving Experimentation

i. Whether the experiment was for the benefit of the inventor or the user?
ii. Whether the features tested are part of actual invention or concern
marketing or sales strategies?
iii. Whether inventor acted like he was conducting a scientific test: did he keep
strict control over third parties’ use of the invention, restricting and
monitoring the actions, imposing confidentiality requirements,
systematically collecting the results of the use, and taking back invention
after?

5. On Sale – The inventor also loses rights to patent if the invention is on sale in the
United States more than one year before the inventor files a patent application.
Two conditions are necessary for the inventor to qualify as “on sale”: (1) the
 invention must be the subject of a commercial offer of sale (this does not include
licensing), and (2) the invention must be ready for patenting, meaning that the
inventor had reduced it to practice or sufficiently described it to do so (i.e.
drawings and descriptions sufficient to enable).

D. Priority – The U.S. rule (first to invent takes priority) differs from almost all other
jurisdictions, which grant the patent to the first to file a patent application. The first-
to-file rule of other countries has advantage of clarity and administrative ease.
However, the first-to-invent system encourages high-quality inventions rather than
forcing inventors to rush to PTO.

1. Priority Test – The first inventor to reduce his invention to practice (either
actually – by making and testing the invention – or constructively – by filing a
patent application) has priority on the patent, unless…

(1) Inventor “ABANDONED,

SUPPRESSED, OR CONCEALED”
the invention, either affirmatively or
by simply delaying for an
unreasonable period of time

OR

(2) The other inventor CONCEIVED the invention (and proceeded with
REASONABLE DILIGENCE) before the competing inventor had
conceived the invention. Procession for reduction to practice must have
begun before the competing inventor’s conception and must not have
been spurred on by the subsequent conception.

2. Reasonable Diligence – Reasonable diligence in reducing an invention to

practice requires that the inventor continually apply himself to reducing the
conceive invention to actual or constructive practice. Gaps in time in which no
effort is expended toward reduction to practice will be excused only if they are
reasonable (e.g. illness or poverty). Delays due to an inventor’s efforts to
commercially develop or exploit the invention or due to his doubts about the
value of the invention generally are not excused.

i) Commercial Activities NOT Reasonable – Delays in caused by an

inventor’s commercial efforts to refine an invention to the most marketable
and profitable form are not sufficient causes for inactivity

Griffith v. Kanamaru (Fed. Cir. 1987) – Griffith, a professor, applied for a patent on a
compound after a significant delay from inception to reduction. He claimed that the delay was
justified because he had to secure outside funding for the project as required by Cornell and he
was waiting for a graduate student to matriculate. Held: When evaluating excuses for
inactivity in reduction to practice, courts may consider reasonable everyday problems and
limitations encountered by the inventor. However, Griffith’s excuse sounded more in the
nature of commercial development, which is not accepted as an excuse for delay. Delays in
caused by an inventor’s efforts to refine an invention to the most marketable and profitable
form are not sufficient causes for inactivity. Waiting for outside funding or for the new
semester to begin are not sufficient excuses.
V. NONOBVIOUSNESSNESS REQUIRMENT

A. Nonobviousness – The nonobviousness standard is set forth in §103 of the Patent

Act. It provides that an invention is not patentable if it would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art as it existed when the invention was
made. Obviousness is a question of LAW and is determined by a JUDGE.

1. Elements of Nonobviousness - A patent may not be granted though an invention

is not identically disclosed or described, if the differences between the subject
matter to be patented and the prior art are such that…

(1) The subject matter as a whole would have been OBVIOUS …

(2) At the TIME THE INVENTION WAS MADE …

(3) To a PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART to which

said subject matter pertains.

2. Policy Rationale – The patent holder has the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing her invention. In return for
such strong protection, an inventor must meet the high burden of nonobviousness.
This will encourage real, significant, and substantial inventions rather than
allowing inventors to obtain monopoly rights for mere trivial changes on
preexisting inventions. This, presumably, will also reduce the administrative
costs of the PTO as well from dealing with useless patents.

B. Nonobviousness Test – Obviousness analysis requires three factual considerations…

(1) Determine the SCOPE AND CONTENT of the PRIOR ART…

(2) Ascertain the DIFFERENCES between the prior art and the claims at
issue…

(3) Resolve the LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL in the pertinent art

…the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined by

looking to those three determinations and other secondary considerations (See
Test Below…)

Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) – Graham submitted for patenting a plow chisel that,
because of its flexible nature, had certain advantages when used in certain rocky types of soil.
The PTO denied the application, finding the design a mere extension of the state of the art, and
an obvious improvement on existing technology. Held: The patent for the improvement was
invalid. A device which is an extension of the state of art for that type of device is not
patentable. § 103 mandates nonpatentability in the case of designs which would be obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the field related to the design in question. A higher level of
ingenuity is required than the ordinary skill found in the field and the work must be the
product of an “inventor” rather than a “mechanic.” Here, the PTO found that the chisel in
question did not represent a leap forward in design technology but rather was a logical
improvement in design which could have been designed by anyone skilled in the field.

C. Scope and Content of the Prior Art – Courts look to the categories of prior art
identified and used in §102 (i.e. novelty and statutory bars) to determine the scope
and content of the prior art existing at the time of the invention. Only prior art that is
“reasonably pertinent’ to the invention, however, is considered under §103.
D. Differences Between Prior Art and Claims – Differences between prior art and the
new invention may be…

1. New Elements – An invention may contain elements that do not appear in the
prior art. The obviousness question is whether adding these elements would have
been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art.

2. Combining References – All of the elements of the claimed invention may

already exist in the prior art, but they may not all appear in a single reference.
The obviousness question is whether it was obvious to combine the references to
solve the particular problem the inventor was working on.

i) Problem with Combining References Analysis – Under § 102 (novelty,

etc), to be invalid, each element of a claim must be found in the same
reference or prior art. Under § 103, however, multiple references can be
combined to determine whether all the elements are identified somewhere
else. The danger in allowing this to render a claim invalid is that if one is
given enough references, everything seems obvious.

ii) Test for Obviousness (Invalidity) Under Combined References –

Regardless of the sophistication of the in the level of skill in the art, for
subject matter to be deemed obvious in view of a combination of prior art
references…

(1) There needed to be a TEACHING, SUGGESTION, or MOTIVATION

to combine the references

AND

(2) There needed to be a REASONABLE EXPECTATION of SUCCESS in

the combinations.

In re Vaeck (Fed. Cir. 1991) – The claimed invention involved the use of genetic engineering
techniques for producing proteins that were toxic to larvae of mosquitoes and black flies. The
claims were rejected by the PTO because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to substitute the genes to obtain the larger quantities of protein. The PTO concluded
that this substitution was suggested by secondary references in earlier patents. Held: No
violation. The proper test for examining nonobviousness is to see 1) whether the prior art
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that they should make claimed
invention and 2) whether the prior art would also have revealed that in so making the
invention, the inventor had a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art must explicitly
suggest the substitution that is the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art to
those of ordinary skill in the art in order for the claimed subject matter to be rejected under §
103. The prior art should also contain evidence that such a substitution would be successful.
Here, the prior art offers no suggestion, explicit or implicit, of the substitution that is the
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.

In re Dembiczak (Fed. Cir. 1999) – Involved “pumpkin” trash bags. The invention is a large
trash bag of orange plastic decorated to resemble a jack-o-lantern. The application was
rejected on the basis that it was “obvious” since other books, patents, and art had instructed
the public on how to create very similar or exactly the same pumpkin bags. Held: No
violation. PTO cannot reject a patent on obviousness grounds without demonstrating clear
and particular evidence of such obviousness. This requires a rigorous application of a
showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references. Here, PTO did not
make specific findings that there was a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the
prior art references cited. Trash bags made to look like giant pumpkins are not obvious from
the prior art (handbooks for elementary teacher arts and crafts and methods of tying up bags).
They may seem obvious when you see them, but the invention has to be obvious BEFORE it
is invented, not after.
E. The Obviousness Determination – The question of obviousness is a question of
LAW, and thus JUDGES, not juries, make the obviousness determination.

1. Obviousness Test – The governing test for obviousness is whether …

(1) The prior art would have SUGGESTED to someone of ORDINARY SKILL
IN THE ART that they should MAKE the claimed composition or device, or
CARRY OUT the claimed process

AND

(2) Would have a REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD of SUCCESS, viewed in the

light of the prior art.

2. Secondary Considerations – After considering the technical aspects of an

invention, courts can also look at various economic and motivational issues
underlying the invention, called “secondary considerations.” These “secondary
considerations” include…

i) Commercial Success – If buyers choose one product over others, reason may be that
the seller invented something that ordinary sellers would not have invented.
However, courts are extremely skeptical about this factor because the link is pretty
weak. There needs to be proof of a nexus between the commercial success and the
invention.

ii) Long-felt but Unsolved Need & Failure of Others – If a need presented itself but
was not solved, the inference is that the solution was not obviousness. These are two
of the most important secondary considerations.

iii) Copying – This is a pretty weak indicator because it is not clear that any level of
copying has anything to do with the level of innovation in an invention.

iv) Unexpected Results or Properties of Claimed Invention – If the results were

unexpected, the invention was likely not obvious.

v) Prior Skepticism & Subsequent Praise of Experts – When experts in the field did
not predict or anticipate a solution, or later view the invention with high praise, the
solution likely was not obvious. This is a good indicator of obviousness, but it is
often difficult to measure.

vi) Licensing and Acquiescence by Others – If competitors licensed the patent rather
than attempting to solve the problem themselves, it suggests that the solution was not
obvious to them. However, this is often viewed as a weak indicator because
licensing is often cheaper than litigating a patent infringement case.

vii) Adoption by the Industry – If the industry as a whole adopts the invention as the
industry standard, it signifies that it was better and different than others.

F. Software and Business Models – Software and business model patents present
special difficulties to the PTO, so a lot of invalid patents are ultimately issued.

1. Problem – Examiners have a difficult time identifying/using the prior art

because…

i) Lack of Skilled Patent Examiners – Software has only been patentable

since the mid-90s, so there aren’t as many skilled software examiners as the
 PTO needs. Thus, a lot of the examinations were done by examiners not
qualified in the field

ii) Classification System – The PTO’s classification system is not equipped to

handle software patents, so they tend to be classified according to the field in
which the software will ultimately be used, rather than according to the
nature of the software invention, which makes it harder for patent examiners
to ID the relevant prior art.

iii) Lack of Prior Art – There is less prior art available than in other fields.

2. Vague Patent Claims – If patent claims are so lacking in detail that a prior
patent specification seems to suggest the claims, even if the resulting invention is
actually different, the invention was obvious and invalid.

Lockwood v. American Airlines (Fed. Cir. 1997) – Lockwood owned patents which related to
automated interactive sales terminals that provided sales presentations to customers and allowed
customers to order goods and services. Lockwood sued American Airlines, saying that their
SABREvision airline reservations infringed its patents. Lockwood appealed, claiming that SABRE
can’t be prior art b/c critical aspects of the SABRE system were not available to the public. Held:
If a device was known or used by others, or if it was in public use, in this country more than one
year before the date of application, then it qualifies as prior use, even if that use is not enough to
enable another to duplicate the system. This means that if software is in use, even if someone else
can’t figure out HOW it works, or see the source code, it counts as prior art.

3. Substantially Similar Business Models

Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com (Fed. Cir. 2001) – Amazon had a patent on its one-click
ordering software, a business method patent that allows buyers to purchase items online using only
one click. B&N sets up a similar “express lane” system. Amazon got a preliminary injunction right
at Christmas time. B&N appealed, questioning the validity of Amazon’s patent and claiming that
their express lane didn’t infringe. Held: Amazon’s patent is likely not valid, and so Amazon should
not have gotten an injunction. The prior art references, especially the CompuServe Trend reference
(a pre-Web program that allowed users to purchase stock charts with one click), make Amazon’s
One Click method obvious because the differences are only negligible.
VI. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

A. Disclosure Generally – Under §112 of the Patent Act, patentees are required to fully
disclose their invention to the public as the price of obtaining a patent. Failure to
make that disclosure results in a denial of a patent.

1. 35 U.S.C. § 112: Specification Requirements – The specification shall

contain…

(1) A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION of the invention, and …

(2) [A description] of the manner and process of making and using it, in such
full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to ENABLE any person skilled in the
art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make
and use the same, and …

(3) Shall set forth the BEST MODE contemplated by the inventor of carrying
out his invention.

B. Written Description Requirement – A patent application must contain a written

description of the invention in clear, concise, and exact terms. By describing the
invention in requisite detail, the inventor shows that he in fact succeeded in inventing
the claimed invention. This requires EITHER a description of the invention OR proof
of possession of the invention.

1. Satisfying the Requirement – The written description requirement can be met in

several ways….

i) Actual Reduction to Practice – The applicant can describe the actual

reduction to practice (i.e. if the inventor made the invention, he can describe
it).

ii) Proof of Possession – Even if the inventor has not actually made the
invention, however, he can still meet the requirement by showing that he
possesses of the claimed invention in words, drawings, sufficiently detailed
formulas, or other ways to convey information.

iii) Deposit – With biological matter, applicants can deposit a sample in a

publicly accessible repository.

2. Benefits – One possible benefit of the written description requirement is to

preclude patent owners from later claiming something they didn’t think of at the
time they filed their applications. Wagner also claims that this has been used as a
tool by the courts to get rid of any patent they want to fail.

3. Written Description LIMITS the SCOPE of the CLAIMS – The written

description limits the scope of the claims. If it is shown that something in the
written description is integral to the invention, the claims are then limited to that
description.

Gentry Gallery v. Berkline (Fed. Cir. 1998) – P (Gentry) owned a patent to a sectional sofa in
which two independent reclining seats face in the same direction. P field suit alleging that D
(Berkline) infringed its patent by manufacturing and selling sofas having two recliners facing in the
same direction. D argued that because the patent only described the sofas having controls on the
console, the claimed consoles were not described within the meaning of § 112. Held: No
infringement. Patent claims may be no broader than the supporting disclosure and, thus, a
 narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth. Here, the original disclosure clearly identifies the
console as the only possible location for the controls. Claims may be no broader than the
supporting disclosure, and thus, a narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth. The claims are so
limited here.

i) Exception: Variations – A patentee can claim more broadly than disclosed

in the written description as long as people of ordinary skill in the art are
fully enabled to make all variations of the description. It is only when a
patent shows in its written description that something is crucial or essential
to the invention that the claims are limited.

Ex: If an inventor knows that a whole class of plants will work for his invention, he doesn’t
have to describe every plant in the class, as long as he describes the theory of why all the
plants will work.

ii) Takeaway: Broad Enough to Enable but Limited Enough to Maintain

Protection – An inventor should limit the disclosure in a patent application
because if it is too specific, this will actually serve to limit the protection of
the patent.
C. Enablement Requirement – The applicant must disclose to the public how to
MAKE and USE the invention. The application must describe the manner and
process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same.

1. Must Enable PHOSITA Without Undue Experimentation – Enablement does

not require an applicant to provide every possible piece of information necessary
for any person to make and use the invention. Rather, the description must only
enable one skilled in the art to do so “without undue experimentation.”

2. Rationale – First, like the utility requirement, it bars inoperable inventions from
patent protection. Second, the enablement requirement also guards against overly
broad claims. Finally, it serves the disclosure role of patent law by forcing the
inventor to release sufficient information to allow others to make and use
invention.

i) “Core” of the Patent Bargain – By sufficiently describing something to the

point of enablement, this fulfills the bargain with society in that society gets
the benefit of the invention in exchange for protection

3. Must Disclose With Specificity; Vague Patents are Void – A description must
enable readers of the patent to make and use the full scope of the invention. If a
description is so vague and uncertain that no one can tell, except by independent
experiments, how to construct the patented device, the patent is void. A patent
must state with specificity the composition of the materials to be mixed together
and their relative proportions to produce the result intended.

i) Broad Categories of Materials – Stating a broad category of materials is not

sufficient b/c it doesn’t allow another person to replicate the inventor’s
results. However, if a patent explains why all of the members of a category
are equally effective, the enablement requirement will be likely held sufficed.

The Incandescent Lamp Patent (1895) – Electric Light Company (M&S) filed suit against
McKeesport to recover damages for the infringement of a patent for an electronic light. P’s
patent claimed “all fibrous or textile material.” Held: Court found no infringement. If a
description is so vague and uncertain that no one can tell, except by independent experiments,
how to construct the patented device, the patent is void. The purpose of this requirement is to
apprise the public of what the patentee claims to hold a patent to. Thus, when a specification
only gives the names of the substances used without stating the relative proportions, the court
 must declare the patent void. B/c the patent stated “fibrous or textile material” but the actual
use only concerned certain specific types of wood, the patent was not sufficiently disclosed.

D. Best Mode Requirement – § 112 also mandates that the patent disclose the “best
mode” of carrying out the invention contemplated by the inventor (relating to the
quality or nature of the invention; not relating to the production of the invention,
e.g. how to make it cheaply). This “best mode” requirement is designed to prevent a
patentee from holding back knowledge from the public, in effect maintaining part of
the invention as a trade secret while protecting the whole under patent law.

1. Balancing Societal Interests – Best mode requirement is described as a statutory

bargained-for-exchange by which a patentee obtains the right to exclude others
from practicing the claimed invention for a certain time period, and the public
receives knowledge of the preferred embodiments for practicing the claimed
invention.

2. Two Components…

i) Subjective Inquiry: Did the Inventor Have a Best Mode? – It must be

established whether, at the time the inventor filed his patent application, he
knew of a mode of practicing the invention that he considered to be better
than any other. This is an entirely subjective inquiry, turning on the
inventor’s belief in the existence of a best mode. If the inventor had no
preferred way, there cannot be a best mode violation

ii) Objective Inquiry: If Yes, Was the Best Mode Sufficiently Described? – If
the inventor did contemplate a preferred mode, the second issue is whether he
disclosed the preferred mode adequately to enable one with ordinary skill in
the art to practice the best mode of the invention. Assessing the adequacy of
the disclosure is largely an objective inquiry that depends upon the level of
skill in the art. Since adequacy of disclose is measured by what a person
skilled in the art would know or understand, it is not necessary for the
inventor to explain things that such persons should already know.
VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION

A. Claims Generally – The claims are the heart of a patent, and §122 provides that “the
specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”

1. Importance of Claims – The claims define the scope of the patent. In this role,
they also define the scope of disclosure, the relationship to prior art, and the
scope of the right to exclude. The big challenge of patent law is using language
to define technology

B. Claim Interpretation – Claim interpretation is often

a necessary part of an infringement analysis or any
issues that involve defining the scope of the claims,
such as determining whether prior art anticipated the
invention. Claim interpretation is thus implicated in
validity, infringement, and patentability analyses.

1. Claim construction is a “Mongrel Practice” –

The Court has used this analogy because claim
construction is a question of law by definition,
but there are factual determinations that need to
be made as well.

2. Allocation of Authority – Claim construction is

an issue of LAW for the JUDGE (Markman v
Westview (1996))

i) Rationale – There is no jury trial right under the 7th Amendment for patent
cases (i.e. at the time of the founding). Furthermore, as a functional matter,
judges are in a better position to interpret claims and the Court wanted to
allocate the authority to the judge to increase uniformity.

ii) Implications – Attorneys would learn about what judges expect in patents
and how they would interpret them. Additionally, the Court understood that
the Federal Circuit would have to review all the cases and they wanted it
reviewed de novo (full standard of review). This will enable the Federal
Circuit to build a body of case law and methodology that will make relatively
consistent decisions.

3. Timing – Often, a trial court will conduct a “Markman hearing” before a case is
actually litigated which will lead to summary judgment. However, there is
nothing in the law mandating this. Other courts wait until the end of the case to
allow the judge to learn as much about the case as possible before interpreting the
claims.

4. De Novo Standard of Review –The Federal Circuit determined that claim

construction is an issue of law that deserves de novo review (Cybor v. FAS Techs
(1998)). This standard of review has resulted in a ~40-50% reversal rate of
district court claim constructions.

i) Implications – This high reversal rate may not be “bad” per se, however,
because claim construction involves difficult, dispositive, and fiercely
litigated issues. Furthermore, only the tough cases go to trial; i.e. the cases in
which the parties cannot determine whether it is better to settle or not.
 Regardless, though, this high reversal rate has created the trend that almost
100% of district court claim constructions are appealed to the Federal
Circuit.

ii) Interlocutory Appeals NEVER Accepted – Interlocutory appeals are the

means by which federal district courts can certify a specific question of law
to the circuit courts. The Federal Circuit, however, has never accepted an
interlocutory appeal concerning claim construction.

iii) Quick Summary Judgment Rulings – This refusal has encouraged district
courts to enter ridiculous summary judgment rulings to quickly send the case
to the Federal Circuit.

C. Interpretive Canons – The following are GENERAL RULES courts apply when
interpreting claims…

1. Can’t read a limitation into a claim from the written description

2. Can look to the written description to define a term already in a claim limitation
3. Claim differentiation: should interpret parts so they don’t contradict - internal
consistency
4. Breadth
i. Claim should be interpreted to preserve its validity (over prior art, etc)
ii. If there are 2 viable alternative interpretations, then the narrower one should
apply
5. When a patentee is his own lexicographer, his definition is the one used.
6. When a claim term is vague, a meaning other than the plain meaning may be used
7. Construction of a claim that would render another claim in the patent redundant is to be
avoided.
8. A claim should be interpreted so as to preserve its validity
9. If a claim is subject to two viable alternative interpretations, the narrower one should
apply
10. Claims must be read as part of the specification (i.e. in context)

D. Interpretive Sources – The following are VARIOUS SOURCES used by courts

when interpreting claims…

1. Claim Language (Plain Meaning)

2. Written Description
3. Drawings
4. Prosecution History – To determine what interpretations were already denied
5. Inventory’s Testimony – Irrelevant b/c patent is for public notice; subjective intentions
are irrelevant
6. Expert Testimony
7. Related References; Dictionaries

E. Dueling Approaches to Claim Interpretation – The Federal Circuit Court of

Appeals has traditionally followed two dueling approaches to claim interpretation…

1. Procedural Approach (more “uniform” approach) – Involves a strict

hierarchy of sources and a relatively formal process – beginning with a general
presumption in favor of the ordinary meaning of claim terms. Such a meaning is
typically established from common usage, dictionaries, or relevant reference
works. The ordinary meaning of claim language controls except where
significant proof exists that a deviation is required.
 i) General Rule (from Johnson Worldwide) – When interpreting a patent,
look first to the plain language of the claims. But if the patentee has chosen
to be his own lexicographer, use that definition first. If the claims are clear
standing alone, use only the claims. If the claims are otherwise unclear, then
look at the written description, then at the drawings to determine what a
claims means.

ii) Two Situations to Refer to Written Description or Prosecution History…

(1) If patentee has chose to be his or her own LEXICOGRAPHER by

clearly setting forth an explicit definition for a claim term (i.e. courts
must allow this for cutting-edge, new technology)

OR

(2) Where the term or terms chose by the patentee so DEPRIVE THE
CLAIM OF CLARITY that there is no means by which the scope of the
claim may be ascertained from the language used.

Johnson Worldwide v. Zebco (Fed. Cir. 1999) – Johnson (P) invented a form of autopilot
that enabled control over watercraft without constant manipulation of the motor controls. The
patent employed a compass mounted to the head of the “heading lock” unit. Zebco (D) sold a
product under the name “AutoGuide” that maintained directional control by use of a foot
pedal. Johnson sued for patent infringement. Z’s argument was that the patent covers only
those autopilot systems that include a compass or other directional indicator physically
attached to the trolling motor. Although there is no explicit requirement in the claim that this
is so, Z argues that the proper interpretation of the terms “heading signal” and “coupled” in
the language of the claim compels such a limited scope. Held: The general rule is that terms
of the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Reference to the written
description or prosecution history is not allowed unless the language of the claims invites
reference to those sources. Here, Z’s argument fails because (1) the patent uses the term in
question in various situations throughout and thus supporting a broader definition; (2) in the
prosecution history there were limitations that the motor was “fixed” on the vessel and thus
the heading of the motor encompassed both the vessel as well as the motor.

2. “Holistic” Approach (more often leads to the “right” result) – This approach
considers the entire context of the patent gives different weight given to various
interpretative sources depending on the particular case. Seeks the meaning of
claim terms according to particular facts and circumstances. Because it does
not observe a hierarchy of informational sources, the holistic approach is more
likely to move away from the ordinary meaning of a claim term in favor of more
contextual understanding.

i) Look First to Claims and Patent in its Entirety – Although extrinsic

sources such as treatises and encyclopedias still may be consulted, the
meaning derived from such sources is of lesser value in comparison to the
contextual meaning provided by the CLAIMS themselves and the
SPECIFICATION.

Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005) – Involved modular, steel-shell panels that can be
welded together to form vandalism-resistant walls. Inventor (Phillips) entered into an
arrangement with AWH to sell the panels. However, after the agreement was terminated,
AWH continued to sell similar panels. Phillips sued for patent infringement and use of trade
secrets. Held: Although extrinsic sources such as treatises and encyclopedias still may be
consulted, the meaning derived from such sources is of lesser value in comparison to the
contextual meaning provided by the claims themselves and the specification. Here, the term
“baffles” do not have to serve all of the recited objectives in the specification, one of which
being the deflection of projectiles, and rejected a construction that would exclude ”baffles”
disposed at a right angle as opposed to acute/obtuse angle
3. Wagner Study from Post-Markman to Summer 2005
- 65% procedural, 35% holistic (n=604)
- Court trending procedural
- Judges: range from 93% procedural to 85% holistic
- Panel membership determines approach
VIII. PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND THE DOCTRINE OF
EQUIVALENTS

A. Infringement Standard – Under §271, a patent grants the right to EXCLUDE

others from MAKING, USING, SELLING, OFFERING TO SELL, or
IMPORTING an invention for 20 YEARS from the time the application was filed.
The subjective intent (malicious, innocent, etc.) of an inventor is irrelevant to
infringement.

1. Infringement is a Factual Inquiry – Once a court interprets the claims and

determines their meaning and scope, the fact finder (i.e. jury) decides whether the
claims are identical on the accused device or process

B. Indirect Infringement – One who does not actually infringe on a patent my

nevertheless be liable for indirect infringement under active inducement or
contributory infringement. Anyone who actively induces infringement of a patent is
liable as an infringer. Contributory infringement lies where one offers, sells, or
imports material known to be a component of a patented invention or is used in
practicing a patented process.

C. Direct Infringement – §271(a) of the Patent Act provides that a person who makes,
uses, sells, or offers to sell the patented invention in the United States, or who imports
the patented invention into the United States, during the patent term without the
patentee’s authorization will be liable for direct infringement.

1. Literal Infringement – If the defendant’s product or process literally falls within

the language of one of the claims, then there is literal infringement to that claim.

i) Must Contain EVERY Element – In order to literally infringe, a

defendant’s process or product must have every element set forth in the
claim. The fact that the defendant’s product or process contains additional
elements will not necessarily avoid infringement liability. However, if even
one element of a patent’s claim is missing from the accused product, there is
no direct infringement.
Larami Corp. v. Amron (E D PA 1993) – Larami manufactures toy water guns called super
soakers, which Amron and his co TTRP say infringes on his watergun patent (‘129 patent).
Both operate by pressurizing water housed in a tank with an air pump. The super soakers gun
contains additional electrical features to illuminate the water stream and create noises when
you fire it. Plus, the water tank in Amron’s gun is not detachable (it’s internal – claim 1 claims
an elongated housing containing a chamber for liquid), while it is detachable in the super
soakers. Held: No, because the absence of even one element of a patent’s claim from the
accused product means there can be no finding of literal infringement, and Amron’s gun
claims an elongated housing containing a chamber for liquid, while the super soaker houses its
water in an external tank.

a. Judge Determine when SJ – The Larami case was decided on summary

judgment even though patent infringement is usually a jury question.
This is only because the rules of summary judgment allowed this, i.e. the
court found that no reasonable jury could find the possibility of
infringement.

2. Doctrine of Equivalents – If the defendant made a change so that his product or

process does not literally fall within the language of the claims, he still may be
liable for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This doctrine is meant
to prevent devious inventors from avoiding liability by making only colorable
changes.
 i) Infringing Must Contain Every Element or Equivalent – In order for a
device or process to infringe under the DOE, it must contain each of the
elements in the patent claim, or an equivalent element.

ii) Evaluating Equivalency – The equivalency of one element to another is an

objective determination made from the perspective of a person with ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the infringement. In evaluating whether a
defendant’s element is equivalent performs the same function the court looks
at…

(1) Whether the defendant’s element performs the SAME FUNCTION in

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WAY to obtain the SAME RESULT as
the claimed element …

OR

(2) Whether the DIFFERENCE between the defendant’s element and the
claimed element is INSUBSTANTIAL.

iii) Policy Objection: Uncertainty – Some authorities have objected to the

doctrine of equivalents because it makes patent coverage uncertain. This is
because other inventors, when reading patent claims, will not be able to
determine with certainty whether their own inventions will be held to
infringe. An excess of caution may result, thereby chilling innovation and/or
competition.

3. Limitations to the Doctrine of Equivalents

i) Prior Art: Cannot Invoke DOE for Equivalents to Prior Art – When a court
evaluates infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, it should visualize a
hypothetical patent claim sufficient in scope to literally cover the accused
product. It should determine whether that claim would have been allowed by
the PTO in light of the prior art. If not (b/c claim was not novel or obvious),
it would be improper to permit the patentee to obtain that coverage in an
infringement suit under the doctrine of equivalents.

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (Fed Cir. 1990) – Involved the
design and dimple patterns used on golf balls. Accused infringing ball had a similar pattern
but not the same pattern. Held: As a matter of law, an inventor cannot invoke the DOE for
things that encompass prior art. If an inventor couldn’t actually claim something in a patent,
then he does not get DOE protection either

ii) Prosecution History Estoppel: Narrowing of Claims – Requires the scope

of patent claims to be interpreted in light of what happened in the application
process at the PTO. If applicant took a position to limit the scope of
coverage of his claims, he will not be permitted in an infringement action to
take an inconsistent position.

a. Unclear Amendment: Presumption Related to Patentability– When the

purpose of an amendment is unclear, the burden is on the patentee to
establish a reason for the amendment. When no explanation is provided,
a court should presume that the PTO had a reason related to patentability
for requiring the amendment, and prosecution history estoppel applies
and bars DOE to that element.
 Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (1997) – Hilton sued Warner for infringement of its
patented ultra filtration process based on the doctrine of equivalents. Key limitation: “a
pH of approximately 6.0 to 9.0”. Accused process had a pH of 5.0. Hilton couldn’t
explain why they amended their patent to include a bottom limit of 6.0 ph. Held:
Supreme Court reaffirms DOE, though it notes a limit – prosecution history estoppel.
Prosecution history estoppel is a viable defense to infringement. However, the burden is
on the patentee to establish the reason for an amendment required during the prosecution.
Where no explanation is established, court should presume that the PTO had a substantial
reason related to patentability for including the limited element. In those cases,
prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine as to that element

b. Limitations to PHE: Rebutting the Presumption – When prosecution

history estoppel applies, this does not raise a complete bar to a finding
infringement. The patentee may rebut the presumption that the
amendment was made for patentability reasons by showing that the
amendment was…

i. Unforeseeable Equivalent – The equivalent at issue was

unforeseeable at the time the narrowing amendment was made (so it
cannot be assumed that the applicant expected to give it up when he
made the amendment)

ii. Unrelated Rationale for Amendment – The rationale underlying

the amendment was unrelated to the equivalent in question.

iii. Otherwise Unreasonable to Prevent Infringement – Some other

reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably be expected
to have described the insubstantial substitute in question in the
amended claim language.

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinozuku Kogyo Kabuskiki Co. (2002) – Festo Corp
was the holder of patents relating to magnetic rodless cylinders. When the PTO
rejected the initial application for the first patent because of defects in description,
the application was amended to add new limitations that the device would contain a
pair of one-way sealing rings and the sleeve would be made of magnetizing material.
D used a two-way seal and non-magnetized sleeve. Held: Narrowing a claim to
obtain a patent does not cause the patentee to surrender all equivalents to the
amended claim element. There is a rebuttable presumption that an amendment will
surrender all equivalents to which the patentee has the burden of proving that the
amendment did not surrender the particular equivalent in question. The presumption
is rebutted when: (1) the ‘equivalent’ technology was unforeseeable; (2)the rationale
for the amendment is unrelated to the equivalent in question; or (3) it is otherwise
‘unreasonable’ to prevent infringement.

iii) Public Dedication: Disclosed in Specification but Not in Claims – When an

applicant discloses subject matter in the specification, but does not include it
in the claims, he dedicates it to the public, and he may not rely on the DOE
to hold a defendant liable for incorporating the subject matter.

a. Remedy: Reissuance Application – A patentee who inadvertently fails

to claim disclosed subject matter does have a remedy, however: within
two years a patentee can file a reissueance application to attempt to
enlarge the scope of the original claims to include the unclaimed subject
matter

b. Policy Implications – Public Disclose doctrine serves as a trap for

unwary inventors. It has created incentives to disclose even less, and
thus, it undermines the basic underlying principles of patent law.
Johnson & Johnston Associates, Inc. v. R.E. Service Co. (2002) (en banc) – The
claimed invention was a ‘backing’ sheet of aluminum that allowed thin copper sheets to
be safely handled for semiconductor manufacturing. The specification notes that various
metals other than aluminum (including steel) could be used as the backing material. A
jury found that the steel backing material was equivalent to the claimed aluminum. Held:
In a patent specification, under the doctrine of equivalents, there is no access to any
subject matter that is disclosed but not claimed. When a patent drafter discloses but fails
to claim subject matter, the unclaimed subject matter is dedicated to the public.
Furthermore, a patentee cannot narrowly claim an invention and then after use the
doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement because the specification discloses such
equivalents.