1 / 9

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property. Boston College Law School March 2, 2007 Patent – Infringement. Infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271

vlora
Télécharger la présentation

Intellectual Property

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. Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 2, 2007 Patent – Infringement

  2. Infringement • 35 U.S.C. § 271 • “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.”

  3. Patent No. 5,205,473

  4. Patent No. 5,205,473 • “What is claimed is: • 1. A recyclable, insulating beverage container holder, comprising: • a corrugated tubular member comprising • cellulosic material and at least a first opening therein for receiving and retaining a beverage container, said corrugated tubular member comprising • fluting means for containing insulating air; said fluting means comprising fluting adhesively attached to a liner with a recylable adhesive

  5. Phillips v. AWH • We claim: • 1. Building modules … comprising in combination, • an outer shell …, • sealant means … and • further means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load bearing capacity comprising internal steel baffles extending inwardly from the steel wall shells

  6. Sources of Interpretation • Claim language • Patent specification • Prosecution history • Extrinsic evidence • Expert testimony • Dictionaries • Treatises

  7. Canons of Construction • Relationship of claims to specification • Can refer to specification for express definition • Can refer to specification where ambiguity • Claim differentiation • Interpret so as to avoid redundant claims • Presumptions about breadth • Interpret to preserve validity • Where two equally valid, adopt narrower one

  8. Larami v. Amron SuperSoaker 200 ‘129 Patent Claim 1: “[a] toy comprising an elongated housing [case] having a chamber therein for a liquid [tank], a pump including a piston having an exposed rod [piston rod] … facilitating manual operation for building up an appreciable amount of pressure in said chamber for ejecting a stream of liquid therefrom …”

  9. Administrative • Assignment for next class • Read through IV.C.3 – Doctrine of Equivalents

More Related