Statutory Bars
description
Transcript of Statutory Bars
![Page 1: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Statutory Bars
Prof Merges
Patent Law – 9.30.2010
![Page 2: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Agenda
• Finish Dow – 102(g)(2), prior invention of another as prior art: one last issue
• Introduction to Statutory Bars
• Compare novelty/anticipation (102(a)) to statutory bars (102(b))
![Page 3: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Park - Dow
C: late August, 1984
R to P: 9/13/1984
AVI Employees
March 3, 1984: R to P (C?)
![Page 4: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2)
(g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] in interference and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed . . .”
(g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”
![Page 5: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Pennock v. Dialogue
• 1793 Act
• Window into early 19th C. patent law
![Page 6: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Dec 7, 1736: 1st Volunteer Fire Department, Ben Franklin, Philadelphia
Reuben Haines, Philadelphia Hose Co. No. 1, 1803
![Page 7: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
In 1807, two of Reuben Haines’ fellow company men, James Sellers and Abraham Pennock, invented a riveted leather hose that revolutionized the design and again put Philadelphia in the forefront of firefighting ingenuity. [T]he riveted Sellers & Pennock hose worked well enough to allow suction engines to be created, changing forever the design and power of pumpers, which could be linked in tandem to bring water from a distance and without a bucket brigade.
![Page 8: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
1793 Act: Sections 1 and 6
• Section 1: When a person alleges they have made an invention “not known or used before the application” they get a patent
• Section 6: Infringer may prove that thing patented was “not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use … anterior to the supposed discovery by the patentee”
![Page 11: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Argument for plaintiff-patentee
• Invention was under control of patentees at all times; no intent to abandon it
• Policy: don’t dwell on technicalities; don’t be like the British!
![Page 13: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Justice Joseph Story
![Page 14: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic (UNC Press
1986)
“In these [early patent] cases [Story] moved away from undue reliance on English law in the direction of an American patent law that would favor inventors and, following the spirit of the Constitution, serve national interest by promoting technological progress. . . . Story’s authority . . . was of immense importance in giving legitimacy to the new position. [H]e was identified by contemporaries as the pioneer in the liberalization of American patent law.”
![Page 15: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Argument for defendant
That mere invention gives no right to an exclusive use, unless a patent is obtained; and that if at a time when no right is infringed, the public fairly acquire possession of it, the inventor cannot, by subsequently obtaining a patent, take it away.
![Page 16: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Sargeant argument (cont’d)
That the inventor, by abstaining from getting a patent encouraged the public to use the article freely, and thus benefited his own manufactory. And he is not at liberty, when this advantage is exhausted, to turn round, and endeavor to reach another and a different kind of advantage, by appropriating the use exclusively to himself. . . .
![Page 17: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Policies
• Invention bestows an “inchoate” right – must be “perfected” (statute of limitations)
• Extension of monopoly: long period of (trade secret) use, then patent term
• Public reliance: reliance on nonexistence of patent
![Page 18: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Justice Story Opinion
What then is the true meaning of the words “not known or used before the application?” They cannot mean that the thing invented was not known or used before the application by the inventor himself… The words then, to have any rational interpretation, must mean, not known or used by others, before the application.
![Page 19: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
[T]hus construed, there is much reason for the limitation thus imposed by the act. … [T]he main object [of the 1793 Act] was “to promote … progress”; and this could be done best, by giving the public at large a right to make, construct, use, and vend the thing invented, at as early a period as possible. – p. 515
![Page 20: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
If an inventor should be permitted to hold backfrom the knowledge of the public the secrets of
his invention; if he should for a long period of years retain the monopoly, and make, and sell his invention publicly, and thus gather the whole profits of it, relying upon his superior skill and knowledge of the structure; and then, and then only, when the danger of competition should force him to secure the exclusive right, he should be allowed to take out a patent, and thus exclude the public from any [use of the invention],
![Page 21: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
It would materially retard the progress of science and the useful arts, and give a premium to those who should be least prom pt to communicate their discoveries. – pp. 515-516
Key policy behind the statutory bar: prevent extension of monopoly
![Page 22: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Section 6:
It gives the right to the first and true inventor and to him only; if known or used before his supposed discovery he is not the first, although he may be a true inventor; and that is the case to which the clause looks.
Novelty, in other words
![Page 23: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
A provision, therefore, that should withhold from an inventor the privilege of an exclusive right, unless he should, as early as he should allow the public use, put the public in possession of his secret, and commence the running of the period, that should limit that right; would not be deemed unreasonable. It might be expected to find a place in a wise prospective legislation on such a subject. If it was already found in the jurisprudence of the mother country [i.e., Great Britain] …. – p 516
![Page 24: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Please note: 102(a) v. (b)
• The prior art event in Pennock was the activity of the inventors themselves
• Contrast with section 102(a): “… known or used by others . . .”
• You cannot destroy your own novelty, but you can (and inventors often do) create statutory bars
![Page 25: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Statutory Bars § 102(b), (c), (d)
An inventor loses the right to patent if, more than one year prior to the applicant’s filing, the invention was:• patented by another anywhere• patented by the applicant in a foreign country-- § d• described in a printed publication anywhere• in public use in the US• on sale in the US
Abandonment, § c.
![Page 26: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Schematic Representation of § 102
§ 102 (b): Statutory Bars[1] No patent if, more than one year prior to application,
invention[A] patented or[B] described in printed publication[C] anywhere, or
[2] invention --[A] in public use or [B] on sale
[C] in this country.
![Page 27: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Statutory Bar Dates
One Year Grace PeriodDec. 20, 1996
PatentApplication
JonesJones
Oct. 1995 Dec. 20, 1995
Jones
§102(b) hurdle
![Page 28: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Statutory Bar Dates
One Year Grace Period
Dec. 20, 1996
PatentApplication
JonesJones
Oct. 1995 Dec. 19, 1995
Jones
Dec. 19, 1996
Section 102(b) BarOne Day Gap
![Page 29: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Egbert v. Lippmann
• Why not a novelty case?
• What are the essential facts?
![Page 30: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Corset Springs
![Page 31: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Egbert (cont’d)
• Conception, Jan – May 1855
• R to P: May, 1855 (?)
• 1858: Second pair of springs
• Patent app filed: March 1866
![Page 33: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Egbert
• Only 1 used – enough?
• “Non-informing public use”
– Why enough to constitute a bar?
![Page 34: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Justice William Woods
![Page 35: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
• Sturgis evidence – p. 524
–Why did Barnes introduce it?
–How did it affect the case?
![Page 36: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Conclusion
• “The inventor slept on his rights for 11 years . . .” – p. 525
![Page 37: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Samuel F. Miller, on Court 1860-1890: dissent in Egbert
![Page 38: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Moleculon Research
• When did Nichols invent his cube?
• Who saw/used it?
• When was a pat app filed?
![Page 39: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Public Use/On Sale
• What was CBS’ public use evidence?
– Why not successful?
– P 530
• Contra Egbert?
![Page 43: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
In TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965 (Fed.Cir.1984), the inventor was a dentist who installed the inventive orthodontic appliance in several of his patients. Although the inventor had not obtained any express promise of confidentiality from his patients, this court did not consider the use "public" because the dentist-patient relationship itself was tantamount to an express vow of secrecy. Id. at 972.
![Page 44: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Metallizing Engineering
![Page 45: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Judge Learned Hand
![Page 46: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
What is the critical date?
•Aug. 6, 1941
![Page 47: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
What is the main issue?
• Sale of output from a machine does not disclose the machine to the public; is it nevertheless a “public use”?
–Compare: Peerless Roll, Gillman v Stern
![Page 48: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Holding: YES
•Extension of monopoly is the key policy; public use found here, patent invalid: p. 535
![Page 49: Statutory Bars](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56815cda550346895dcae353/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
§§ 102 (a) and (b) Prior Art Chart
102: Was Invention: By: In: Before: If yes:
a known others U.S. Date of invention Na used others U.S. Date of invention Oa patented others any country Date of inventiona published others any country Date of invention Pb patented anybody any country 1 year prior to filing Ab published anybody any country 1 year prior to filing Tb in public use anybody U.S. 1 year prior to filing Eb on sale anybody U.S. 1 year prior to filing N T