Patent Law, Spring 2010, Course Coverage Table

Module 1: Introduction (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Introduction
1-2
All
Foundations - Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (1989)
3-8
Origins - In re Bergy (CCPA 1979)
9-11
Patent History and Development
12-19
Forms of Patent Protection
19-20
Forms of Patent Protection (continued)
25-26
Nature and Function of the Patent System
27-40
Example patent (US Pat. No. 5,190,351)
21-24
Review this patent in detail; trace the claim language to the specification's disclosure and to the components shown in the drawings; what is the gist of the inventive concept?
All
More on wheelbarrows: overview; design document
Module 2: Patent Eligibility (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Patent Eligibility
58-59
L
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
59-69
Lab Corp v. Metabolite (2006)
69-76
Computer related inventions and business methods - Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
76-80
Example patent with method and structure claims: 4,079,239
Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
80-86
L
State St. Bank v. Signature (Fed. Cir. 1998)
86-87
US Pat. No. 5,193,056
AT&T v. Excel (Fed. Cir. 1999)
87-88
In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
88-122
L
122-122
think about these, they will be reviewed in class
R
Module 3: Utility (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Utility - Lowell v. Lewis (Dist. Mass. 1817)
123-125
n/a
Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang (Fed. Cir. 1999)
126-131
US Pat. No. 5,574,405
Brenner v. Manson (1966)
132-140
R
In re Fisher (Fed. Cir. 2005)
140-154
Module 4: Anticipation, Statutory Bars and Novelty (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Anticipation - Titanium Metals Corp v. Banner (Fed. Cir. 1985)
155-166
L
Inherency - Continental Can v. Monsanto (Fed. Cir. 1991)
n/a
To be discussed by Vetter from the overheads; US Pat. No. 4,108,324
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms. (Fed. Cir. 2003)
166-178
Anticipation Exercise
178-179
think about but do not externally research the exercise;
replace "DDS Catalog" in the last paragraph with "Fiendish Flouridators"
L
Statutory Bars - Public Use - Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)
179-188
Metallizing Engr. v Kenyon Bearing (2d 1946)
188-193
City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. (1877)
193-200
On Sale Bar - Pfaff v. Wells (1998)
200-209
US Pat. No. 4,491,377
R
§102(b) - Electric Storage Battery v. Shimadzu (1939)
210-211
§102(b) - Abbot Labs v. Geneva (Fed. Cir. 1999)
211-216
§102(b) - W.L. Gore v. Garlock (Fed. Cir. 1983)
216-220
§102(c) - Abandonment
220-221
§102(d) - Delayed US Filing
221-223
223-224
think about but do not externally research the exercises.
Novelty - §102(a) - Prior Invention - Woodcock v. Parker (Dist. Ma. 1813)
225-227
R
Gillman v. Stern (2d 1940)
227-231
Antedating a Reference
231-232
§102(g)
233-237
Conception - Oka v. Youssefyeh (Fed. Cir. 1988)
237-241
L
Reduction to Practice - Scott v. Finney (Fed. Cir. 1994)
241-249
Diligence - Gould v. Schawlow (CCPA 1966)
249-257
Corroboration - Woodland v. Flowertree (Fed. Cir. 1998)
257-264
Award to the Second Inventor - Apotex v. Merck (Fed. Cir. 2001)
264-273
Special Class Session
Class session this evening will be held by attendence at this lecture: http://www.law.uh.edu/ipil/springlecture.html
Thurs., Feb. 25
n/a
§102(e) - Disclosure in US Patents - Alexander Milburn v. Bournonville (1926)
273-277
L
§102(f) - Derivation - Agawam Woolen v. Jordan (1868)
277-282
First to file versus first to invent
282-284
284-285

think about but do not externally research the exercises;
in problem 3, replace "2001" with "2006"
in problem 5, insert "is filed" after the word "transistor" in the third line

 
Module 5: Nonobviousness (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Obviousness
286-289
R
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)
289-294
Great A. & P. Tea v. Supermarket Eqpt. (1950)
294-297
Graham v. John Deere (1966)
298-308
KSR Intl. v. Teleflex (2007)
308-326
R
In re Translogic Tech. (Fed. Cir. 2007)
327-334
Objective Tests - Ormco v. Align Tech. (Fed. Cir. 2006)
334-348
L
Prior Art for Nonobviousness
369-370
Prior art under Sec. 102 - In re Foster (CCPA 1965)
370-375
Analogous Art - In re Clay (Fed. Cir. 1992)
375-381
Nonobviousness Exercise
381-385
think about but do not externally research the exercise
Module 6: The Patent Specification - Objective Disclosure & Best Mode (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Enablement - Gould v. Hellwarth (CCPA 1973)
386-398
L
Atlas Powder v. Dupont (Fed. Cir. 1984)
398-402
Annotated US Pat. No. 3,447,978
In re Wright (Fed. Cir. 1993)
402-409
Wands Factors - Pharma Resources v. Roxane Labs. (Fed. Cir. 2007)
409-415
US Pat. No. 6,593,318
R
Written Description (new matter) - Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar (Fed. Cir. 1991)
415-426
Gentry Gallery v. Berkline Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1998)
426-431
Univ. of California v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 1997)
431-437
R
Written Description Controversy - Enzo v. Gen-Probe (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discussions concerning the court's decision not to hear the case en banc)
437-445
Written Description Controversy Resolved! - Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2010)
4-41
(.pdf pgs.)
read only the majority opinion
Best Mode - Chemcast v. Arco (Fed. Cir. 1990)
445-457
R
Objective Disclosure Exercise
458
think about but do not externally research the exercise
Module 7: Claims (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Claims - Ex parte Fressola (BPAI 1993)
459-468
Format - Preamble - Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com (Fed. Cir. 2002)
468-475
L
Claims - transition and body
475-478
 
Claims - product by process - Atlantic Thermoplastics v. Faytex (Fed. Cir. 1992)
479-487
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1999)
487-500
L
Aristocrat v. Intl Gaming Technology (Fed. Cir. 2008)
501-509
Jepson Claims
509-510
Markush Claims
510-511
Definiteness - Orthokinetics v. Safety Travel Chairs (Fed. Cir. 1986)
511-517
Datamize v. Plumtree (Fed. Cir. 2005)
517-527
Module 8: Infringement (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Autogiro v. US (Ct. Cl. 1967)
649-654
Literal - Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996)
654-665
L
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Tech. (Fed. Cir. 1998)
665-674
Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)
674-690
Computer Docking v. Dell (Fed. Cir. 2008)
690-697
US Pat. No. 5,187,645
R
DOE - Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products (1950)
697-702
Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (1997)
702-714
Limitations on the DOE - All Elements - Corning Glass v. Sumitomo (Fed. Cir. 1989)
714-720
R
PHE - Festo v. Shoketsu (2002)
721-731
Festo on remand at the Federal Circuit
n/a
read only the majority opinion, pages 4-23 in the PDF file
Dedication - Johnson & Johnston v. R.E. Service (Fed. Cir. 2002)
731-739
R
Prior Art - Wilson v. David Goeffrey & Assoc. (Fed. Cir. 1990)
740-742
Module 9: Prosecution and Post-Grant Procedures (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
Prosecution
530-542
Inventorship - Ethicon v. US Surgical (Fed. Cir. 1990)
544-558
Inequitable Conduct - Duty of Disclosure
558-558
L
Intent - Kingsdown v. Hollister (Fed. Cir. 1988)
558-567
Materiality - Aventis v. Amphastar (Fed. Cir. 2008)
568-587
NOTE: coverage for the Spring 2010 course ends here
Double Patenting - In re Vogel (CCPA 1970)
588-595
Post-Grant Procedures
608-609
Reissue - HP v. Bausch & Lomb (Fed. Cir. 1989)
609-621
ReExamination
621-624
Module 10: Defenses and Remedies (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
NOTE: the page number and case assignments below have not yet been adjusted for the 3rd edition of the case book.
Laches and Estoppel - Aukerman v. R.L. Chaides
910-920
Shop Rights - McElmurry v. Ark. P&L
920-926
 
First Inventor Defense
926-928
stop before "Additional Defenses Exercise", pg. 928
Remedies Overview
930-931
stop before "H.H. Robertson . . ."
Permanent Injunctions
940-941
Damages - Panduit v. Stahlin
941-947
stop before "Rite-Hite . . ."
Module X: { forthcoming } (slides)
Assignment Start Page Comment/Notes
{resv.}
Date
Call Group
{ forthcoming }

Last modified on April 29, 2010, by Greg R. Vetter