PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Advertisements

RJMorris - Genetics Dept Retreat - Stanford University1September 18, 2008 by Roberta J. Morris, Ph.D., Esq. Lecturer, Stanford University Law School Member.
Intellectual Property (ref: Engineering by Design by Gerard Voland)
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
J. Gordon Thomson Professional Corporation Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public (Ontario) Registered Patent Agent (Canada & USA) Registered Trade-mark.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.
Vs. Miguel Chan UC Berkeley IEOR 190G March 2009.
ISMT 520 Lecture #6: Protecting Technical and Business Process Innovations Dr. Theodore H. K. Clark Associate Professor and Academic Director of MSc Programs.
D ANIELS B AKER Introduction to Patent Law Doug Yerkeson University of Cincinnati Senior Design Class April 6, 2005.
Introduction to Nonobviousness Patent Law
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
® ® From Invention to Start-Up Seminar Series University of Washington The Legal Side of Things Invention Protection Gary S. Kindness Christensen O’Connor.
Intellectual Property OBE 118 Fall 2004 Professor McKinsey Some property, very valuable property, exists only in our minds, in our imagination. It is intangible.
CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 4: The Patent Process 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 4 Dr. Tal Lavian.
Patents and trade secrets 6 6 Chapter. Patents  Grant of property rights to inventors  Issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)  Permits.
CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology
Secondary Use Patents: An international and Canadian perspective E. Richard Gold James McGill Professor, McGill Faculty of Law Secondary Use Pharmaceutical.
© 2010 Hodgson Russ LLP IEEE Southern Area Entrepreneur’s Day Overview Of The Patent Process R. Kent Roberts Hodgson Russ LLP (716)
Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering,
Wireless Mobile Devices Patents Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Week 3.
Intellectual Property
Chapter 25 Intellectual Property Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
The Role of Patent Information in Promoting Innovation Islamabad October 8, 2013 Mussadiq Hussain Program Officer, Innovation and Technology Support Section.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 5: Patent Anatomy & Strategy 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 5 Dr. Tal.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating.
What is a Patent Apple’s iOS and Smartphone Patent War Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering,
Understanding patent claims (a) Toy ball. Sub-module CUnderstanding patent claims - (a) Toy ball 2/15 The invention A ball that is fun to use, easy to.
I DENTIFYING AND P ROTECTING I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY Tyson Benson
European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.
Patenting Wireless Technology (cont) Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
What is Intellectual Property ? Patents- protection of technology Trademarks- protection of domain names and product identity Copyrights- protection of.
INVENTION DISCLOSURE WRITING WORKSHOP May 6, 2004 Presented by: Hunter Auyang Bella Fishman.
Institute of Technology, Entrepreneurship and InnovationBemidji State University Institute of Technology, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Intellectual.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
2011 Industry Sponsored Research Workshop INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Michael Jaremchuk Associate Director CVIP Phone: FAX:
Introduction to IP Ellen Monson Director Intellectual Property Office University of Cincinnati.
5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 750 Houston, TX (fax) (mobile) WHAT IN-HOUSE COUNSEL NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT IP August.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 6: Validity and Infringement 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 6 Dr. Tal.
Obviousness II Class Notes: February 11, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
Patenting Wireless Technology Week 2 Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 1: Introduction to Patent Engineering 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 1.
Patent Innovations- Berkeley-Lavian 4th week 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology 4th Week Dr. Tal Lavian (408)
Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe.
Class Seven: Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights.
Expanding Patentability: Business Method and Software Patents By Dana Greene.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
Side 1 Andrew Chin AndrewChin.com A Quick Survey of the America Invents Act Patent Law October 12, 2011.
Patenting Wireless Technology Week 5 Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
Sci.Ev rjm Week 3 - 9/26/07 1 LAW Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony: Patent Litigation Today’s Agenda  The Arrival of the Graduate.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Administrative Notes: Week 1.
Patents IV Nonobviousness
Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 8 Dr. Tal Lavian (408) Haviland Mondays.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.
Slide Set Eleven: Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights 1.
IP and the working archive Issues arising from the use of Mass Observation Elizabeth Dunn Gaby Hardwicke - Solicitors & Trade Mark Attorneys.
1 Lightening intro to intellectual property law – Sept. 26, 2002 Based in part on original notes by Randy Davis.
Patent Engineering- Berkeley-Lavian 8th week 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology 8th Week Dr. Tal Lavian (408)
BLW 360 – January 27, 2015 Jonathan LA Phillips
An introduction to Intellectual property protection TG © Copyright by Stevens Institute of Technology.
Patents IV Nonobviousness
Chapter 4: Patents and Trade Secrets in the Information Age.
What are the types of intellectual property ?
What are the types of intellectual property?
What You Didn’t Know That You Didn’t Know About Patents
Presentation transcript:

PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal Lavian (408) Haviland Mondays 4:00-6:00

2 Claims & Elements I Patent must contain at least one claim Usually contains several claims –Claims are numbered and clearly distinct Infringement of single claim is sufficient for infringement –Need not infringe two or all claims Each claim usually contains several elements –Infringement requires correspondence between each element of a claim and an element of the allegedly infringing product or process –In literal infringement, the correspondence is exact Accused device or process has element exactly matching description in a patent claim –In doctrine of equivalents infringement, correspondence is not exact, but elements are “similar” and “equivalent” Elements in patent and accused device or process perform the same function in the same way to achieve the same result PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

3 CLAIMS Claims define the legal effect of the patent! Learn a new VERB: READ ON - if a claim READS ON the prior art, the claim is INVALID - if a claim READS ON an accused device, the device INFRINGES the claim PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

4 Liability ≈ Validity & Infringement In ANY IP case (copyright, trademark, trade secret), the liability questions are: IS IT VALID? IS IT INFRINGED? The “it” is will vary, of course. What makes an “it” valid is different, too. So: What is the “it” in a patent case? PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 5 Obviousness A patent may not be obtained if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art The invention must provide one or more NEW and UNEXPECTED results The obviousness standard prevents the patenting of relatively insignificant differences between the invention and the prior art Credit given to Professor Roberta J. Morris, of Stanford University Law School, for much of the information

PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 6 Obviousness (cont’d) Prior art can be combined in an obviousness determination, that is, more than one reference can be cited by the examiner as showing different features of the invention which, taken together, render the invention obvious Obviousness is inherently a subjective determination, as the examiner cannot be, or know the mind of, the hypothetical “one skilled in the art.” Credit given to Professor Roberta J. Morris, of Stanford University Law School, for much of the information

7 Depends on what is in the PRIOR ART. How do those 2 differ? 1.HOW MUCH ART? 2.What other things matter, besides the art and what it DISCLOSES? Anticipation and Obviousness PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

8 Anticipation and Obviousness 1. How much art? Anticipation: A single piece of prior art is ON ALL parts. The claim READS ON this single reference. Obviousness: Usually more than one reference, but could be one reference PLUS the knowledge of the “person of ordinary skill in the art” PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

THE PRIOR ART SEARCH A thorough search should also include both patent and non-patent references such as journals and other publications. The Internet is an excellent source for prior art information. A patent search is not an infringement search. PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian 9

Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness THE PRIOR ART SEARCH (cont’d) A patent search is a search of public patent records of at least the U. S. Patent Office for disclosures pertinent to the patentability of the invention. The search can be conducted in Washington in the search room of the U. S. Patent Office, or by means of electronic databases (such as the patent database available at PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian 10

Nonobvious to Whom? A patent will NOT be issued if a person having ordinary skill in the field of the invention would consider the invention obvious at the time of creation The law considers a person having ordinary skill in the art to be a worker in the field of the invention who: –Has ordinary skill –Is totally knowledgeable about all the prior art in his or her field Pure Fantasy, but no other realistic way to determine nonobviousness –The PTO creates a hypothetical person and tries to weigh the obviousness of the invention against the knowledge this hypothetical person would possess PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 11 Credit given to Attorneys David Pressman & Richard Stim, Nolo’s Patents for Beginners, for much of the information

12 Anticipation and Obviousness 2. What else matters besides ? Anticipation: NOTHING. Except that the single piece of Prior Art must ENABLE at least as well as the patent does. Obviousness: LOTS. The PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS. (really not much beyond the p.a., but there’s a formula for them, from the statute and from court decisions) The SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS Guess which one Accused Infringers prefer to use to challenge a patent? What about Patent Owners? PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

13 SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS (1)The invention's commercial success (2) Long felt but unresolved needs (3) The previous failure of others (4) Skepticism by experts (5) Praise by others (6) Teaching away by others (7) Solves an unrecognized problem (8) Solves an insoluble problem (9) Copying of the invention by competitors (10) Omission of Element (11) Crowded Art (12) Not suggested Modification (13) Unappreciated Advantage Guess which one Accused Infringers prefer to use to challenge a patent? What about Patent Owners? PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

14 Combination Inventions Inventions that combine two or more elements already known in prior art can still be patentable, provided the combination is nonobvious: (1)Synergism (2 + 2 = 5) (2)Combination Unsuggested (3)Impossible to Combine (4)Different Combination (5)Prior-Art References Would Not Operate in Combination (6)References from a Different Field Credit given to Attorneys David Pressman & Richard Stim, Nolo’s Patents for Beginners, for much of the information PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness

Examples of Obviousness Nonobvious: Slight Physical Changes – Dramatic Result –Sometimes, a very slight change in shape, slope, size, or material can produce a patentable invention that operates entirely differently and produces totally unexpected results Nonobvious: New Use Inventions –Do not involve any physical change to old invention –Must be different use of known product or process and produce new, unexpected results Obvious: Different Element, Similar Function –Courts have held that substituting a different, but similarly functioning, element for one of the elements in a known combination creates a novel invention but an obvious one. PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 15 Credit given to Attorneys David Pressman & Richard Stim, Nolo’s Patents for Beginners, for much of the information

Examples of Obviousness Obvious: Old Concept, New Form –The PTO will consider as obvious the mere carrying forward of an old concept, or a change in form and degree, without a new result (notches on inner rim of steering wheel for better grip, obvious because of medieval sword handles) Obvious: Duplication of Parts –Usually consider the duplication of a part as obvious unless new results can be observed Obvious: Portability, Size, Speed, and Integration –Making devices portable, making parts smaller or larger, faster or slower, making elements adjustable, parts integral, separable, etc. will be considered obvious unless new, unexpected results can be shown. PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 16 Credit given to Attorneys David Pressman & Richard Stim, Nolo’s Patents for Beginners, for much of the information