Patent Law, Spring 2010, Course Coverage Table
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 |
|||||
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 |
|||
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 |
||||
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 attendance 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; |
||||
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 |
|||
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 |
|||
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 |
||||
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 |
||||
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 |
||||
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 . . ." |
|||
Assignment | Start Page | Comment/Notes | {resv.} |
Date |
Call Group |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{ forthcoming } |
|||||
Last modified on April 29, 2010, by Greg R. Vetter