A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends of Patent Law (A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends of Patent Law) Roberta J. Morris, Esq, Ph.D. Lecturer,

A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends

of Patent Law(A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends of Patent Law)

Roberta J. Morris, Esq, Ph.D.Lecturer, Stanford Law School

Member of the Patent Bar and of the Bars of New York and Michigan

[email protected]

RJM - 4/13/2012 1Salishan Conference

Salishan Conference 2

Thank you

Steve Joncus, Klarquist Sparkman and OPLA.

The Stanford Law Library reference librarians, especially Rachael Samberg and George Wilson this time.They always find everything I ask for, including things I didn’t know I was asking for.

But don’t blame them for any errors. All errors are mine.

RJM - 4/13/2012


You know who I am. Who are you? -1

If you can hear the sound of my voice, please rise/raise your hand.Lower your body/hand if

- you were already practicing patent law when the Federal Circuit decided Markman (4/5/1995)

- you started practicing patent law before the Supreme Court decided KSR (4/30/2007)

Welcome, children!RJM - 4/13/2012

You know that *I* think there are myths. But what do you think?

Please write your best guesses for patent law’s top myths on the index card in your folder.If you want to write at greater length, email [email protected].

Please pass the cards in now. I’ll look at them tonight and track you down in the morning!

RJM - 4/13/2012

mailto:[email protected]


From my talk here 2 years ago:Quotes from Judge Rich

“Be prepared. Be concise. Be clear. If your client does not have a good case, counsel him, her or it to conserve resources – including your potential fee. At best, litigation is a gamble.”

(quoted in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary)

RJM - 4/13/2012

“If you look long enough in the patent law, you can find a case to support any kind of proposition[.]”

Judge Rich, Jefferson Medal Acceptance Speech, New Jersey Patent Law Association, 1955 (quoted in Smith1999)

http://www.njipla.org/jefferson_winners.asp

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol14/Smith/html/text.html


What some of my students just won't believe

It’s the CLAIM, stupid.

RJM - 4/13/2012


Dis[claim]er

My new thoughts - not found in any reference I know of, and - which I may disagree with any minute now

will be identified with

This means- it’s my baby: don’t blame anyone else- it’s only a baby: not fully developed, not mature

RJM - 4/13/2012

8RJM - 4/16/2010 Salishan Conference

A claim from my 2010 talk, reissued.

1. A method for curling hair, comprising the steps of:acquiring a knowledge of patent law,and,

while maintaining the hair free of restraint, reading a judicial opinion from a court selected from

the group consisting of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the opinion is authored by a person selected from the group consisting of ____, ______, _____ or _________.

Claim was time-barred by a disclosure in a previous talk.

http://stanford.edu/~rjmorris/SVA_TALK.PPT


Behind the MYTHS: The Religion(Another Claim)

We, the people of the United States, claim:1. A method for Promoting Progress in Useful Arts, comprising the [single] step of:

securing for limited Times

to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.

RJM - 4/13/2012

101 Questions Utility (~ a perpetual

motion machine)?A law of nature?An abstract idea?

102/103 QuestionsPublicly known more

than a year before 1787?


Behind the MYTHS: The Religion - 2

We, the people of the United States, claim:1. A method for Promoting Progress in Useful Arts, comprising the [single] step of:



RJM - 4/13/2012

Practical questions What is the art?

Who would be an infringer?

Can we apply NOW? Hint: actual RTP requires determining that the invention will work for its intended purpose. Maybe we're still experimenting!



We, the people of the United States, claim:1. A method of Promoting Progress in Useful Arts, comprising the [single] step of:



RJM - 4/13/2012

If you have no problem with this claim, you are a true believer.If you have doubts, you are an agnostic.If you shout REJECT!, you are an atheist.






RJM - 4/13/2012

I am a believer.

I also believe in the adversary process.

• Not based on the evidence of specific cases

• Not based on surveys of aggregate data,o if there were any reliable

ones, which there are not...


The Religion – DataWe, the people of the United States, claim:1. A method of Promoting Progress in Useful Arts, comprising the [single] step of:

securing for limited

Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.

RJM - 4/13/2012

Objective: The evidence from 19th century Europe:

Schiff, Industrialization without National Patents (1971):

Holland – no patent law 1869 to 1912, Switzerland – none until 1888

Petra Moser, 95 Am Econ Rev 1214 2005) :Crystal Palace 1851 (GB) and Centennial Exhibition 1876 (US)

Roger Cullis, Technological Roulette (Queen Mary IP Research Institute) (2004)

Subjective: Surveys About Beliefs and Actions[By economists in the 20th century]By Berkeley law professors in the 21s century:

Graham Merges Samuelson Sichelman


The Religion – Logic


securing for limited

Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.

RJM - 4/13/2012

The Carrot-Carrots. the Stick-Carrot, the Public Domain (adding, not subtracting)

• encourages IN_V_TORS because a temporary exclusivity could mean- more money in the relevant market , and- more money in M&A (but note: Instagram

didn't need any stinkin' patents. [TBOOK: appls and pats searched 4/12/12]

• encourages IN_V_TORS to design around because of the threat of other people's patents

• patent disclosures* are a great resource even in the Google Age, enriching the Public Domain

*"There are no bad patents, only good prior art." -RJM re BMPs and other hated patents that could be shot down by 103 but aren't ...

The Supreme Court does not know the phrase 'design around'

The Supreme Court writes about protecting the PD, not expanding it.


Word Choices Speak Volumes

RJM - 4/13/2012

IN __ V __ TORS

Fill in the blanks:

no a ? OR

-- en ?


THE MYTHS and LEGENDSStatute’s statue comes to life?

Can a real person ever be the "person of ordinary skill in the art" mentioned in the statute?

I.8.8: “authors and inventors.” “inventors = authors”?The inventors wrote the specification, claims, arguments and amendments? Really?

Life (for claims) begins at conceptionThe claim as issued existed from the moment of conception of the invention. (E.g. re the on-sale bar and its negation by experiental use)

Equal Protection (well, construction) for claimsAll claim terms have an absolute right to be construed. (112p2 means very little. Cf. The Rich Legacy.)There exists a construction [one or more?] for every term in every claim.

Good guys/Bad guys ≡ Relationship to PatentNot quite. Color(Hat) = f(Rp, t).

RJM - 4/13/2012

17

Ordinary Skill

RJM - 4/13/2012 Salishan Conference

The statute invokes the knowledge that a hypothetical Person

having Ordinary Skill in the Art to which {the claimed invention}

pertains would have had at an earlier date*in order to evaluateOBVIOUSNESS and ENABLEMENT (and OK, written description)

*THROUGH 3/15/13: the time of invention

FROM AND AFTER 3/16/13: the effective filing date of the

application


103

(a)

befo

re, a

nd 1

03 a

fter

, the

AIA

RJM - 4/13/2012

103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

(a) A patent

for a claimed inventionmay not be obtained

though the notwithstanding that theclaimed

invention is not identically disclosedor described as set forth in section 102of this title,

if the differences between the subect matter

sought to be patented claimed invention

and the prior art are such that thesubject matter claimed invention

as a whole would have been obvious

at the time the before the effective date of the claimed

invention was made

to a person having ordinary skillin the art to which

said subject matter the claimed inventionpertains.

Patentability shall not be negatived negated

by the manner in which the invention was made.

Pre-AIA:: Read center (regular) and left (italics).

applies to applications filed before 3/16/13, and their conts and divs.

Post-AIA: Read center (regular) and right (bold)applies to applications filed on or after 3/16/13.

PTO eff. dates .

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/patents.jsp



19

112

firs

t par

agra

ph n

ow a

nd s

oon





Pre-AIAThe Specification.

[undesignated &1]

Post-AIA(a) In General.—The Specification

The specification shall contain a written description

of the invention, and of the manner and process

of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,

and exact terms as to enable any

person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is

most nearly connected, to make and use the same,

and shall set forth the best mode

contemplated by the inventor

or joint inventorof carrying out

his theinvention.

Subject of previous talk!

the invention

20

Ordinary Skill – Shorthand Terms1. Acronyms

PHOSITA • first (TBOOK) printed use in 1966: Cyril A Soans, patent lawyer in Chicago, in IDEA

(“Some Absurd Presumptions in Patent Cases”)• picked up by Fed Cir in 1984 {guess which judge}; 9 court cases• next in Bradley G.Lane’s Note in U.Mich.J.L.Ref. article, 1987, and then

as of 4/8/2012: ~300 law review articles, per Westlaw – Pronounced FA (as in father)-zit-tuh (as in tub)]

POSITA• I wrote it that way in 2001 in JPTOS• Others did too in later years: ~40-50 law review articles by now

- Pronounced po-ZEE-tuh: a POSITA is also a small poseur

POSA • seems to be gaining popularity: first citing/sighting 2004, ~ 10 law review articles by now. • Michigan Patent lawyer John Posa loves it.

2. Real wordsORDINARY ARTISAN

• in use since at least 1913 {guess which judge}*• Chief Judge Rader used this term in 2009 and 2010. Judge Moore used it last month,

quoting Rader’s 2010 opinion. RJM - 4/13/2012 Salishan Conference

21

Ordinary Skill – Shorthand TermsORDINARY and ARTISAN are both important words.

But they don't express the hypothetical and temporal aspects of this legal fiction.

Candidate acronymsHOAATTRD (hypothetical ordinary artisan at the relevant date)?

HOA-TOI and HOA-TOF or HOA-AOTPD (hypothetical ordinary artisan at the time of invention or time of filing or as of the priority date)

TAHOA (time-appropriate hypothetical ordinary artisan)

HOA-TA(hypothetical ordinary artisan, time appropriate)


Is TAHOA as good in the Google age as PHOSITA is, and POSITA and POSA are not? Alas, no. It’s a Second Life ski resort.

KSR told us the ordinary artisan is not an automaton.

HOA-TA

22

Experts and Ordinary Artisans - 1

Can you challenge an expert in the art as TOO expert, and thus not ORDINARY?

Yes, litigators still do that, and sometimes they win.See Duramed v. Watson Labs, 701 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1170 (D.Nev. 2010)But not permanently. reversed (Fed Cir 2011) (unpub, Lourie, Linn, Dyk).Why unpublished?Why no sanctions?


23

Experts and Ordinary Artisans - 2Can you challenge a qualified expert's testimony because it does not require her expertise?

Yes: PO's expert's testimony concerned proving infringement from AI's marketing docs. 5,004,681 B1. Technical area was a therapeutic composition of cryogenically preserved stem cells

See Pharmastem, 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed Cir 2007) (Newman, Bryson and Prost; Newman dissenting)


24


Tension between TECHNICAL expertise and ISSUE expertise. Examples:

PharmaStem - high tech patent, marketing docs

Sundance - low tech patent, simple prior art

On SJ, PO's lawyers attach the docs and argue.But if they lose SJ and go to trial

- what witness do they call to introduce the docs? - what witness can they call to compare the docs to the claim? Nobody?


25


An expert who compares HIGH TECH claims to [Prior Art/Accused Device] should have ??technical AND patent law qualifications??

(First-time experts would have to explain how the client's attorneys educated them?)



Sundance v. DeMonte - The StoryPO Sundance's Patent: 5,026,109: a retractable segmented cover for trucks; segments are independently removable.

Jury Trial. AI DeMonte's expert on obviousness (and other things) is its patent attorney, Mr. Bliss.

PO's motion in limine against Bliss is heard along with other motions 5 days before trial. Trial Judge denies it from the bench.

Jury Verdict: For AI on invalidity. For PO on infringement.

JMOL: For PO on validity.

AI appeals the JMOL. PO appeals prejudgment interest.

RJM - 4/13/2012

Who can appeal the denial of

the motion in limine?


Experts and Ordinary Artisans

Sundance: Patent attorney who lacks ‘ordinary skill in the art’ cannot be qualified as a ‘technical’ expert.

“We hold that it is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify as an expert on the issues of noninfringement or invalidity unless the witness is qualified as an expert in the pertinent art.”

550 F.3d 1356, 1364(2008)(Dyk, Prost, Moore) (reversing Senior Judge Avern Cohn)

RJM - 4/13/2012

My second favorite sight-gag number joke; There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary,

And those who don't.


Experts and Ordinary ArtisansNobody – yet – has argued that it is malpractice for a member of the patent bar

- to write an amendment/argument to the PTO after a 103 rejection or

- give an opinion of counsel concerning validity or infringement

without first hiring a person of ordinary skill in the art to advise them.

Why not? Because the HOA-TA is a fiction.

RJM - 4/13/2012


Rules of Evidence and Patent (liability-side) Experts

Sundance quoted Rule 702, F.R.Evid:

“If scientific, technical or other specialized

knowledge … will assist the trier of fact…”

RJM - 4/13/2012


Prof. Arthur Miller's Rules of Civil Procedure

First Rule: Read the rule.

Second Rule: Read on.[also stated in my "Open Letter to the Supreme Court concerning Patent Law" 83 JPTOS 438 (2001).]

These rules are also good Rules of Evidence...

RJM - 4/13/2012


Rule 702Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

RJM - 4/13/2012

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.


Law-Fact-Equity

RJM - 4/13/2012

EQUITYR56 Ineq. Conduct283 Injunction284 Multiple Damages285 Award of atty fees- Patent

Misuse

FACT101 Lack of Utility102a Anticipation102g Diligence102g Corroboration103 Analogous Art103 Graham 1 - S&C of

PA

103 Graham 2 - Diffs: Cl. v. PA

104 Graham 3 - Level of Skill

103 Graham [4] – Secondary considerattions

112P2 Best Mode112 P1 Written

Descrip.R56 Intent (Ineq. Cond.)

R56 Materiality (Ineq.

Cond.)

271 Infringe. – literal

271 Infringe. – DOE

285 Exceptional Case

LAW101 Patentable Subj. Matter

102b Experimental/Public Use

102b On Sale 102g Priority of Inv.102g Conception 102g Reduc. to Prac.103 Obviousness112P1 Enablement112P2 Indefiniteness101, 102, 103,112, 271 Claim Construction

NB: All statute numbers are pre-AIA .Consult your tax advisor for the new numbers.

Compiled first in the 1990s, then made into a slide for Adv Pat Seminar2005, updated for Sci Ev Seminar 2007 and 2012. See also pdf pages 31-33 of my amicus brief in Microsoft v. i4i. which has citations. -rjmFACTS!

http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/10-290_Morris.pdf


Miller's Rules after graduation -->Morris's Truth: Read Anew, See Something New

RJM - 4/13/2012

1. 'Validity' = 'Obviousness' here. No intended contradiction with ANTICIPATION and WRITTEN DESCRIPTION being questions of FACT. 2. One of THREE conditions? 102 and 112 being the other TWO? 101 is not a CONDITION? Dicta, but it shows the state of knowledge and understanding of

persons of ordinary skill in the art of rendering Supreme Court opinions in patent lawat the time the Graham decision was written

While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law, A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. [ 340 US 147, 155 (1950)]the § 103 condition, which is but one of three conditions,

each of which must be satisfied, lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. Under §103,

[1] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [2] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be

ascertained; and [3] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.

Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Graham v. Deere, 383 US 1, 17 (1966).


Inflation/Numerology: 3 is bad, 4 is better

RJM - 4/13/2012

Statutory Conditions for patentabilityPer Graham: 103 is 1 of 3Per Bilski and Prometheus, 101 is not only a 4th , it is #1 of 4.

Graham used to be known as having THREE factors (often re jury instructions)

Sakraida (US 1976) "Graham three-pronged test" (quoting 7 Cir.)Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck (7 Cir. 1983) Graham tripartite inquiryHilton Davis (Fed Cir 1995), quoting Roberts, with no quibble about

that 3Hybritech (Fed Cir 1986) "three factual determinations

and ...objective evidence of obviousness [sic: non]"Trans-World Mfg (Fed Cir 1984) "three primary factors"

But NOWADAYS, see Siemens (Fed Cir 2011): FOUR.


Sundance and Experts and Rule 702Is comparing a claim to prior art something scientists and engineers do in the course of practicing their art?

Or is it something lawyers and examiners do?

What area of EXPERTISE is relevant?Or areas?

Clients with ordinary - or more - skill in a technical fieldrely on YOU on questions of law (obviousness, say) and legal questions of fact (such as scope and content of the prior art, anticipation, enablement)?

RJM - 4/13/2012


Sundance’s RulingAlthough

- nobody appealed the denial of PO’s motion in limine- neither side could have, and- no further briefing was requested,

the court held thatBliss’s testimony on obviousness,

comparing the claims to 2 references [one of which is listed on the patent]should have been excluded because Bliss did not have ordinary skill in the art of the invention. Bad Judge Cohn. Bad. Bad.

RJM - 4/13/2012

key words: scope of appealwaiverfairnessequity jurisprudencejudicial economy


Sundance’s Bottom Line

Held: The jury didn’t need expert testimony on obviousness because the level of skill was so low. Therefore a reasonable jury

(a hypothetical one? unprejudiced by AI’s patent lawyer’s testimony?)

could have concluded that the invention was obviousby comparing the claim to the two references using only the knowledge of an ordinary person,especially in light of KSR.

(which had not yet been decided).Therefore Judge Cohn abused his discretionin granting JMOL. Bad Judge. Bad. Bad.

RJM - 4/13/2012

AI’s witness was probably an ordinary person, although a lawyer…


Compare two legal fictionsThe Reasonably Prudent Person

We let jurors decide what a RPP would have doneWe don’t voir dire jurors about how R and P they areWe trust judges to decide, too, without checking their

homeowner's insurance, tax payments, traffic tickets...Why?

Because the RPP is a fiction. You don’t have to BE one to KNOW what one would do.

COMPAREThe Ordinary Artisan

We require expert witnesses to be at least ‘ordinary' artisans.

Why?RJM - 4/13/2012


Sundance’s Ruling

NOBODY sitting in a courtroom today can be an ordinary artisan at the time the patent application was filed (absent a time machine). Why debate whether the person has adequate credentials to be an impossibility.?Instead, ask if the person's special expertise – EXPERT in the art, TODAY, or EXPERT in reading and thinking about patents/applications in that art TODAY -- makes the person qualified to ‘assist the trier of fact.'Experienced patent lawyers who specialize in patents in that art may not qualify as ordinary artisans (often defined as X years of education and Y years of experience practicing that art) but may well be the experts from whom real people [clients] seek assistance. Judges too - both as real people and as potential experts.

RJM - 4/13/2012


Myth 2: Inventors=Authors

Inventors=Authors

Is that necessary?

Writers: Use the passive voice when discussing the words in the specification, claim and prosecution history! Honesty is the best policy, and avoiding outright untruths is the better policy compared to lying...

RJM - 4/13/2012


Authorship: "Ignorance is No Excuse"?

Naive (first-time) inventor tragedies.

Lough v. Brunswick (1997)

Brasseler v Stryker (2001)

EZ Dock v. Schafer (2002)

RJM - 4/13/2012


Myth 3: Right-to-life for claims –

Life begins at the moment of conception?

On-sale bar: does the claim read on the thing offered for sale? If so, it's invalid.

The claim-as-issued – that bunch of words in that order -- did not come into existence until sometime after the pre-application offer.

Maybe that doesn’t really matter. Or does it?

RJM - 4/13/2012


Right-to-life for claims – Life begins at the moment of conception? -2

The HOA-TA gets involved, too.

Pfaff’s two prong test is 1. a commercial sale, and 2. an invention ‘ready for patenting.’

RFP = RTP or inventor-prepared docs that would enable a HOA-TA to *practice* the invention.

RJM - 4/13/2012

44

102(

b) n

ow a

nd s

oon





102. Conditions for patentability; noveltyand loss of right

to patent(a) Novelty; Prior Art.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless***

(b) the (1) the claimedinvention

was patentedor {comma}

described in a printed publicationin this or a foreign country {comma}

or in public useor {comma}

on salein this country {comma} or otherwise

available to the publicmore than one year prior to the before the

effective filing

date of theapplication for patent

in the United Statesclaimed invention

***

The AIA's version of the statutory bar(incomplete, linebreaks mine)

(b) Exceptions.-- (1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.-- A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if-- (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor ...

Nice that Congress tossed 102(a)’s ‘known’ (held to mean ‘publicly known’ based on [??]) and said this instead.


Life begins at the moment of conception? -

Experimental Use: An experiment that - verifies that no further changes are needed,

rather than causing changes, - and therefore does not affect claim language

is not an experiment that can negate the on-sale bar.

But at the time of the experiment, there was no claim language...

RJM - 4/13/2012


MYTH 4:Equal Protection for claims – Every claim term

is entitled to a construction?

3/25/13: the 15th anniversary of Cybor and Judge Rader, concurring in the judgment, identifying

1. CVI/Beta v. Tura: the Fed Cir did not agree with its own previous claim interpretation, and

2. JTEaton v Atlantic and 3. Exxon v. Lubrizol: the appellate court 's interpretation was not selected from the group consisting of constructions by the trial court or the parties

RJM - 4/13/2012

47

Equal Protection for claims – Every claim term is entitled to a construction? - 2

In all 3, the claims at issue had numerical limitations. What jumped off the page: The metrics not anything a HOA-TA would have known or used.

Cf. Myth 2: Inventor=author


48

Equal Protection for claims – Every claim term is entitled to a

construction?

Why not use the BOP on the underlying issue, the way we do for summary judgment? tinyurl.com/claim-bop.

But then construing courts would have to admit that they know why the parties proffer different interpretations. They should [admit] because they do [know]. Truth is better than fiction.



Myth 5: Good Guys, Bad GuysMy Patent Law Classes, 1991 to 2004: Greedy Sleazy PO v. Filthy Rotten Stinking AI

19th Century: Bad = PO (Free trade)20th Century: Bad= PO (Antitrust)~1982 ± 12: Good=PO

POs - Honorable and Dishonorable DPO=NPE?AIs - Honorable and Dishonorable DPO=???

My Microsoft v i4i Amicus Brief at *12: It's Trolls v. Thugs

[Thugs come in 2 types: Muggers and Bullies]

RJM - 4/13/2012


THE END

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

RJM - 4/13/2012


Bibliography

RJM - 4/13/2012

Do patents work for their intended purpose?Moser = Moser, PetraGraham = Graham, Merges, Samuelson and SichelmanMachlup & Penrose = Fritz Machlup and Edith PenroseEisenberg =

ExpertsWu = Dolly Wu, 2010 BC Intell. Prop. & Tech.F. 91501, “Patent Litigation: What about Qualifications for Court Appointed Experts” – comprehensive list cases in which technical expert testimony (almost all party experts) or qualifications is discussed

102b and experimental use (recent: post Pfaff)CeccarelliEZDock


1964: PTO pledges to improve disposal rate

RJM - 4/13/2012

46 JPTOS 876-877 (1964)


Claim Existence and Equal Protection

Both are intertwined with the myth of the inventor’s authorship.

Advice to writers: Use the passive voice. “In the application, it is stated…” Use the inanimate object as actor: “The claim says…” “The specification explains …” Avoid attributing When should we confront the myth? When EQUITY (that almost forgotten concept) demands it. When JUSTICE (ditto) demands it.But will the patent system grind to a halt without the myth of authorship?

RJM - 4/13/2012


OUTTAKES

RJM - 4/13/2012


Experts and Ordinary Artisans

If an expert is expert, does that prevent ner from testifying about what a HYPOTHETICAL ordinary artisan at an earlier date would have known? Yes, said D.Nev in 2010. Fortunately, the Fed Cir, Lourie, Linn and Dyk, disagreed. Duramed Pharms v. Watson Labs, unpub 2011.Sundance. Jury finds for AI: claim is OBV (but also for PO: claim is infringed). AI offered expert testimony from its patent lawyer that the claim was obvious over the combination H + C.Judge grants PO’s JMOL: claim is NOT obv.AI moves for reconsideration in light of intervening KSR decision. Judge denies it and also denies AI’s JMOL of nonWho challenged the admission of the AI’s expert opinion on validity? Not the parties. The Fed Cir!But not followed in 594 F.3d 1360, SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward (Fed Cir 2010). Allowed former ex’r to be expert, where dist ct had so ruled, too.

RJM - 4/13/2012

http://tinyurl.com/ne-ner-nis

http://tinyurl.com/ne-ner-nis


The Legacy: WHAT? WD QUIZ 1

The WRITTEN DESCRIPTION requirement is SEPARATE from the ENABLEMENT requirement. The authority for this rule comes from:

A. CONGRESSB. THE SUPREME COURTC. JUDGE RICHD. ALL OF THE ABOVE

RJM - 4/13/2012


The Legacy: WHAT? WD ANSWER TO QUIZ 1

Not A (Congress). The current statute is not clear.

Not B (Supreme Court). The Supreme Court has never been asked whether a claim that is ENABLED is nevertheless not DESCRIBED.

Therefore Not D (All of the above), either.

The correct answer is C. JUDGE RICH.

RJM - 4/13/2012


Final Quiz: THAT’S RICH means: -1

RJM - 4/13/2012

WAIT! Maybe you shouldn’t answer.You know never to make fun of

someone’s name.But on the other hand, written language is always ambiguous.

That’s why they pay patent lawyers the big bucks.

Documents

A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends of Patent Law (A Child’s Guide to the Myths and Legends of Patent Law) Roberta J. Morris, Esq, Ph.D. Lecturer,