1 / 14

Utility

Utility. Jan. 28, 2008 Prof Merges. Utility – Section 101. 101. Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture,. Main Trouble Areas. No known utility (“perpetual motion machines”)

capucine-jencarlos
Télécharger la présentation

Utility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utility Jan. 28, 2008 Prof Merges

  2. Utility – Section 101 101. Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture, . . .

  3. Main Trouble Areas • No known utility (“perpetual motion machines”) • Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 [ 11 USPQ2d 1340] (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable) • Malicious utility • a "useful" invention is one "which may be applied to a beneficial use in society, in contradistinction to an invention injurious to the morals, health, or good order of society, or frivolous and insignificant"

  4. Justice Story View • Appendix, Note on the Patent Laws, 3 Wheat. 13, 24. See also Justice Story's decisions on circuit in Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. 1018 (No. 8568) (C. C. D. Mass.), and Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed Cas. 37 (No. 1217) (C. C. D. Mass.).

  5. Brenner v Manson • This is not to say that we mean to disparage the importance of contributions to the fund of scientific information short of the invention of something "useful," or that we are blind to the prospect that what now seems without "use" may tomorrow command the grateful attention of the public.

  6. Brenner, cont’d • But a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion. "[A] patent system must be related to the world of commerce rather than to the realm of philosophy. * * *"

  7. In re Brana 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436 C.A.Fed. Decided March 30, 1995

  8. Brana cont’d • FDA approval, however, is not a prerequisite for finding a compound useful within the meaning of the patent laws. Usefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.. Were we to require Phase II testing in order to prove utility, the associated costs would prevent many companies from obtaining patent protection on promising new inventions, thereby eliminating an incentive to pursue, through research and development, potential cures in many crucial areas such as the treatment of cancer. -- 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436, 1443

  9. Some quick economics Terry L. Anderson & Peter J. Hill, The Race for Property Rights, 33 J.L. & Econ. 177 (1990) David D. Haddock, First Possession Versus Optimal Timing: Limiting the Dissipation of Economic Value, 64 Wash. U. L.Q. 775 (1986). Dean Lueck, The Rule of First Possession and the Design of the Law, 38 J.L. & Econ. 393 (1995)

  10. Ex Parte Fischer • Claim 1 • “Substantially purified” – echoes of Parke-Davis • “Selected from the group consisting of . . .” • What is this claim form?

  11. “An article of clothing, selected from the group consisting of Shirts Shoes Pants” “A chemical entity selected from the group consisting of Carbon COOH CH(6)” Markush Group

  12. Fischer • What utilities are claimed? – P. 3 • “determining a relationship between a polymorphism and a plant trait” • “isolating a genetic region . . . Or mapping” • “determining [protein] levels . . .”

  13. Fischer - holding • P 22 • Immediate utility is to conduct further experiments • Too attenuated under Brenner and Brana

  14. “Expressed Sequence Tag” Patents • Bad Idea! Eisenberg & Merges opinion letter, 1995 • Patent law’s “utility requirement” bars these patents • Why? “Rent Seeking” Dominates incentive motive; Transaction Costs a Major Issue

More Related