1 / 15

Understanding Newness in Intellectual Property: A Review of Patents and Priority Rules

This comprehensive review explores the concept of "newness" in intellectual property, focusing on novelty under statutory sections 102(a) and 102(e) of U.S. patent law. It discusses various statutory bars, including the public use bar and experimental use exceptions, illustrated by key cases such as City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. (1877) and Alcoa v. Reynolds Metals (1989). Additionally, the review analyses priority rules under sections 102(g), contrasting "first to invent" with "first to file" doctrines, along with the implications of prior user rights and non-obviousness provisions.

dewei
Télécharger la présentation

Understanding Newness in Intellectual Property: A Review of Patents and Priority Rules

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. Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept. 24 2003

  2. Review: “Newness” • Novelty s. 102(a), ss. 102(e) • Statutory bars s. 102(b)

  3. Exception to Public Use Statutory Bar

  4. Exception to Public Use Statutory Bar • Experimental Use Exception : City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. CB 163 (1877)

  5. Other Newness Criteria • S. 102(c) - abandonment • S. 102(d) – certain foreign applications • S. 102(g) – lack of reasonable diligence can cause priority to be lost

  6. Problem 3-7 • Based on Alcoa v. Reynolds Metals, 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1170 (N.D. I. 1989)

  7. Problem 3-8 • Based on National Research Development Corp. v. Varian Assoc., 822 F. Supp. 1121 (D.N.J. 1993), aff’d in part, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

  8. PRIORITY • 102(g)(1) • 102(g)(2) • First to invent vs. First to File

  9. HYPO • G conceives June 30 1981 • G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 • K files patent application Jan 14 1984 • Who has priority?

  10. HYPO • G conceives June 30 1981 • G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 • K files patent application Jan 14 1984 • Who has priority?

  11. HYPO 2 • G conceives June 30 1981 • K files for U.S. patent Nov. 17 1982 • G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984 • Who has priority?

  12. HYPO 3 • G conceives June 30 1981 • K conceives Jan 1 1982 • K reduces to practice Nov 11 1982 • G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984 • Priority? Whose, if any, diligence matters?

  13. PRIOR USER RIGHTS • To what extent do these exist in U.S. patent law?

  14. Non-Obviousness • S. 103 • Purpose? • Interpretation Graham v. John Deere

More Related