Teaching Note for Chapter 4 - TI:GER Programtiger.gatech.edu/files/KauffmanPresentations/Teachingnote_Ch4.pdf · Chapter 4 Teaching Note. 1. ... system for obtaining and enforcing

Patent and Technology Commercialization: Issues and Opportunities

Chapter 4 Teaching Note1

This chapter has been designed for use in a multidisciplinary course comprising law, business, and science/engineering graduate students. It also could be used in a course directed to any one of these student groups in a segment on patents. It provides an overview of the U.S. patent system for obtaining and enforcing patents, discusses key international and regional patent treaties, and identifies several issues of particular relevance to the university-industry technology transfer context facilitated by the Bayh-Dole Act.

This note opens with a summary of the teaching objectives for the chapter and the methodology of its use in conjunction with PowerPoint® slides, discussion questions, and two class assignments. It also provides a topical update and relevant resource citations for several issues discussed in the chapter, including the patenting of business methods, current global patent issues, and patent licensing and enforcement. Teaching Purposes and Methodology The purpose of the chapter is to provide students of diverse educational backgrounds with a common, basic understanding of the way patents are obtained and used in the U.S., how the U.S. system relates to the global patent landscape, and an introduction to some of the unique challenges and opportunities created by the use of patents in the technology transfer context. In the multidisciplinary course, teams of students use and progress from this basic understanding through a patent searching exercise and patent claim drafting exercises. Students also explore the technology transfer issues by responding to discussion questions.

Exhibit 1 contains a PowerPoint slide set that drills down into specifics of the introductory concepts regarding how to obtain, retain, and enforce patents introduced in the chapter. The slide set begins with the types and nature of patents, types of applications, patent prosecution process, and patentability requirements. Following is a hypothetical exercise (using a hamburger) to illustrate the novelty/anticipation analysis, and graphic slides illustrating the requirements of Sections 102 (a), (b), and (g) of the patent statute, the provisions that are most likely to create prior art, or an interference situation for inventors. The slides and discussion continue with the CREATE Act, the description/enablement/best mode requirements, and the doctrine of inequitable conduct that can make a patent unenforceable, the inventorship requirement and a chart on the lifecycle of a patent. Enforcing patent rights when claims are infringed comes next with an infringement hypothetical using the hamburger example from the

1 This teaching note was prepared by Margo Bagley, J.D, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 580

Massie Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738. [email protected] Bagley is grateful for support from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

mailto:[email protected]�

Chapter 4 – Margo Bagley 2

novelty exercise, along with a discussion of exceptions and defenses to infringement, and remedies. The discussion concludes with comments on the lack of a true global patent system and an introduction, which is necessary for the patent search exercise, to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system.

Patent Search Exercise

: In the multidisciplinary course with teams of law, business, and science/engineering graduate students, this exercise involves having the science/engineering graduate student draft an invention disclosure describing her research (Exhibit 2), which the team then uses as the focus of a prior art search (Exhibit 3). The chapter (alone or in conjunction with chapter 3) provides the common basic understanding of patents necessary for this project in conjunction with lectures that focus on searching and that elucidate details of the patent document and nature of prior art.

To prepare for the class session, students are asked to read the patent searching chapter from “Patent It Yourself” by David Pressman (Nolo Press) and do the following activity before coming to class:

Perform a patentability search at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website for a list of issued patents that include “napkin ring” in the title and print those results. Indicate which patents on the list are utility patents and which are design patents. Indicate which patent(s) list the attorney or agent as the author of the reading assignment. Perform a worldwide patentability search at the European Patent Office website for a list of issued patents that include “napkin ring” in the title and print those results. Indicate which patent(s) on the list have an inventor named Lloyd Clark.

The students are also asked to consider the following discussion questions: 1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of computer searches related to patentability? 2) Identify several types of searches relevant to patent strategy. 3) What does all this information on the face of a patent mean? 4) How do you calculate patent term? This pre-class activity helps students generate questions about the patent search process and begin to gain some facility with the activity. During class, personnel from Westlaw and/or Lexis can optionally be brought in to explain to students how to conduct patent searches with these databases. Exhibit 5 shows sample PowerPoint slides for the class session including illustrations of searching at the www.uspto.gov website.

The patent search exercise is expressly designed to help the team assess whether to move ahead with efforts to patent the invention or to focus their efforts in a different direction but can accomplish a variety of additional teaching goals, including:

• Helping students understand the different types of information that a patent yields beyond that relating to novelty and non-obviousness determinations, such as who are

http://www.uspto.gov/�


major players in a particular technology area, whether the area is a “patent thicket” that might require numerous licenses before a product could be commercialized, and the difference between what a patents’ drawings may disclose and what the claims actually protect;

• Getting science/engineering students comfortable with describing their invention in terms lay people can understand (which may be important, for example, for securing venture capital or management buy-in in the future);

• Aiding all of the students in becoming comfortable with reading patents and patent documents from other countries, such as published Japanese patent abstracts and PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) applications; and

• Illustrating in a practical way the difference between the novelty and non-obviousness requirements in patent law, as coming upon an identical disclosure of the invention tends to be rare but finding references that could be combined in an obviousness rejection often is not.

Each team member records their searches on worksheets (they create their own or use the sample provided as Exhibit 4) which are turned in and can be used by the instructor to assess the quality and variety of searches performed. The final product of the exercise is a search and analysis summary letter, drafted by the law student who plans to become a patent attorney, who gathers information from the other team members on the scope of each person’s search and the most relevant prior art patents and other documents uncovered. It is important to make clear to the students that this is not a patentability opinion, rather it is a simple summary of results.

Claim Drafting Exercises

: This exercise is designed to give students an understanding of the meaning of a patent claim and an appreciation for the challenges inherent in trying to define an invention while avoiding the prior art and obtaining broad protection from competitors. To prepare for the session, students were asked to read any U.S. patent and answer questions 2, 3, and 5 from the following list in advance:

1) What are the parts of a patent application? 2) For the application that you reviewed, print the claims and indicate which you think is one of the broadest claims and explain why. 3) In regular English, explain what you think that claim means. Indicate which, if any, are composition claims and which, if any, are method claims. 4) What are the parts of a patent claim? 5) How do you decide how many patent claims to include in an application? The class session begins with an identification of the different parts of a patent and moves to different types of claims and claim formats. Sample PowerPoint slides are provided in Exhibit 6. The teams then are given time to draft actual claim sets based on an invention description. Three such sample descriptions are provided in Exhibit 7. Each team then selects a team representative to describe briefly the invention and claims to the rest of the class, providing an opportunity for comments and discussion on the scope and content of the claims and the challenges encountered in the exercise. This portion of the class optionally includes guest patent practitioners, enough for each team to have a practitioner to guide them in the group claim


drafting activity. Unless it is overturned on appeal to the en banc court or U.S. Supreme Court, the recent Tafas v. Doll decision, in which the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO could limit the number of claims that can be included in an application, but not the number of continuation applications that an applicant can file, should be mentioned in the coverage of this material. Topical Update Patent law is a dynamic, ever-changing field. Thus, while the chapter includes numerous citations of cases and research, it is not surprising that some of the information in the chapter is already out of date. However, new articles and books relevant to the broad range of topics mentioned in the chapter are being produced at such a rate and in such quantities that it would not be possible to identify all or even a large portion of resources that may give useful insights in teaching this material. Consequently, a selected few recent court decisions, articles and books are cited below to aid in updating the material and in elucidating areas of potential special interest. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter (Chapter pp. 122-123)

: Despite the expansion in the scope of patent-eligible subject matter over the past ~30 years, the patenting of certain biotechnology-related inventions and software/business methods remains controversial. In late 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) constricted the scope of patent-eligible software and business methods in the In re Bilski decision. Bilski’s invention involved a method for managing weather-related risk through commodities trading. In upholding a rejection of Bilski’s claims, the CAFC articulated a new, two-prong subject matter eligibility test: “A claimed process is surely patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” This new test is much stricter than the court’s previous State Street Bank test which simply required inventions to provide a concrete, tangible, and useful result. Professors Graham Dutfield (Dutfield 2009) and Sabrina Safrin (Safrin 2007) both provide helpful background discussions of the history of, and current tensions in, aspects of the controversy surrounding biotechnology patenting.

Global Patent Issues (Chapter pp. 118-120)

: The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) continues to be controversial for patents, particularly in the areas of compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents (Ho 2008) and the possibility of adding a disclosure of origin requirement amendment to the Agreement (Bagley 2009, Safrin 2007)) to aid the biodiversity preservation, access, and benefit-sharing objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

University Inventors (Chapter pp. 123-125, 128-133): Pending patent reform legislation in the U.S. Congress appears likely to move the U.S. from a first-to invent to a first-inventor to file country, a change that could have important ramifications for university inventors in particular, as the one-year grace period during which inventions can be disclosed to the public (such as by publication) without impacting patentability will be significantly constricted. (Bagley 2008). On a somewhat related note, last year the NIH adopted new rules requiring all grant recipients to deposit a final author’s draft of all peer-reviewed articles resulting from NIH funding in PubMed Central, a federal open-access repository (accessible at


https://cms.mail.virginia.edu/Session/4456M6fJHdXgwIpytr2yh0kykmbcobh/compose.frame.wssp), within twelve months of publication. In addition, increased patenting of software inventions by university inventors is another area of growing controversy (Rai 2007). It is likely, however, that this activity will be impacted to some extent by the Bilski decision. Obtaining and Enforcing Patents (Chapter pp. 135-137)

: In an influential 2003 book cited in the chapter, authors Adam Jaffe and Joshua Lerner stated that decisions by the CAFC had made it “easier to get patents, easier to enforce patents against others, easier to get large financial awards from such enforcement, and harder for those accused of infringing patents to challenge the patent’s validity.” (Jaffe and Lerner 2003).

What a difference a few years can make. After the United States Supreme Court’s KSR v. Teleflex decision, it arguably is now harder to get and riskier to enforce patents. Patents are harder to obtain because the decision made it easier for examiners to reject claims as obvious in view of the prior art. By the same token, it is riskier to enforce patents because they can be more easily invalidated on the basis of non-obviousness due to these same changes in criteria enunciated by the Court. Also, there are indications that the USPTO created internal policies to reduce the number of patents granted, particularly in the software and business method area (Lemley and Sampat 2008). Moreover, the Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision mentioned in the chapter, while technically not making it harder to enforce patents, certainly created additional uncertainty regarding enforcement, because permanent injunctions no longer issue automatically after a finding of patent infringement. The decision eliminated the Federal Circuit’s general rule in patent cases that a district court must issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement absent exceptional circumstances.

While the trend post-eBay is for injunctions to be granted if the patentee competes with the infringer, the granting of injunctions is less likely if the patentee is not in the business of selling or manufacturing the claimed invention, but rather licenses the technology. Moreover, in some cases, courts have not only denied permanent injunctions but have awarded an ongoing royalty payment, constituting a de facto compulsory license.

Not only are injunctions no longer a sure thing in patent cases, it is now harder to obtain an award of treble damages if infringement is found. The Federal Circuit’s 2007 In re Seagate decision made it more difficult to establish the willfulness of conduct necessary for an award of enhanced damages.

In addition, the Supreme Court’s 2007 MedImmune v. Genentech, Inc. decision made it easier for licensees and third parties to challenge patents by establishing that a licensee does not have to breach a license agreement in order to bring a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of a patent. The decision made declaratory judgment jurisdiction easier for a party to establish and thus easier for a licensee or competitor to use in challenging a patent. Also, the Court’s 2008 Quanta v. LG decision gave a broad interpretation of the patent exhaustion and first sale doctrines, insulating third parties that purchased licensed products from a patent licensee from liability for infringement and effectively requiring patentees to be more circumspect in drafting license agreements if they wish to hold downstream purchasers liable for infringement.


In a recent book “Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk,” Professors James Bessen and Michael Meurer argue that, in many technology areas, patents now provide a disincentive to innovation because of their poor boundaries, which provide insufficient notice to third parties of what the patents cover (Bessen and Meurer 2008). As a result, the authors assert that patents are not really working as property-based incentives. For example, the authors note:

By the late 1990s the risk of patent litigation for public firms outside of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries exceeded the profits derived from patents. This means that patents likely provided a net disincentive for innovation for the firms who fund the lion’s share of industrial R&D; that is, patents tax R&D.

Thus, they contend, the risk of patent litigation has increased because the metes and bounds of the property right are unclear and their enforceability value uncertain. Introducing such issues associated with the changing standards for patent procurement and enforcement can provide abundant fodder for lively class discussion. Discussion Questions The chapter identifies a variety of current issues associated with patents, including the tension between publishing and patenting, the lack of a global patent, the patenting of research tools and the experimental use exception, and the impacts of aggressive and creative licensing strategies. Any of these issues and more could provide the basis for discussion questions. In the multidisciplinary course, the following discussion questions have been used in conjunction with the chapter (along with additional assigned reading: pp. 1-24 of Jaffe and Lerner (2003) and the Executive Summary from the National Academies “A Patent System for the 21st

Century (2004)):

1) After the readings, how has your perception of the usefulness of patents changed, if at all? 2) How do the readings suggest we should evaluate the patent system? 3) What are the costs to society of a malfunctioning patent system? 4) How would the proposed changes in the patent system affect the commercialization of your team’s technology? 5) Do you foresee problems in launching your product given the workings of the patent system? Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to Dr. Tina McKeon, J.D., PhD. for her insights into teaching in the TI:GER program and her tangible contributions to the materials in this note. Dr. McKeon created the claim drafting exercises and many of the PowerPoint slides. Also special thanks to Professor Anne Rector for facilitating acquisition of many of the materials used in creating this note.


Teaching Note Exhibit 1











Teaching Note Exhibit 2 FUNDAMENTALS OF INNOVATION I

(CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION) Ph.D. INVENTION DISCLOSURE FOR TEAM PROJECT

1. Provide a summary of your invention, hypothesized invention, or one novel aspect of your research for search purposes.

2. Describe the purposes and advantages of your invention (potential applications), possible

novel features, and how it operates (sketches/diagrams/photos are helpful). 3. Describe the closest known prior art (publications, patents) and how it differs from your

invention. 4. Specify key components/raw materials/resources needed to practice the invention, also

specify what fields of study the invention is most closely related to. 5. Note whether the invention is still in the conception stage or has been reduced to practice,

and relevant dates of conception and reduction to practice (you do not have to give best dates; can say “at least as early as”).

6. Describe and date any previous disclosure of the invention to the public.

7. Type “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” on the top right-hand corner of each page of

the invention disclosure.

If this were an invention disclosure to be given to a patent attorney for drafting a patent application, you would also need to provide any information on experimental testing and results. Share copies of the disclosure with your team members in the next class period.


Teaching Note Exhibit 3 TI:GER FUNDAMENTALS OF INNOVATION I:

PATENT SEARCH AND ANALYSIS TEAM PROJECT

The purpose of this project is to help the project team assess whether to move ahead with efforts to patent the subject invention or to focus efforts in a different direction. Patent attorneys routinely order searches for clients (some conduct the searches themselves) and report on the results. More and more inventors are learning the importance of conducting a search before engaging the costly services of a patent attorney, and business managers who are thoroughly familiar with the nature of and patent protection prospects for an invention can better contribute to and lead the team effort to achieve commercial success. The chapter from “Patent It Yourself” also contains 14 specific reasons for conducting a patent search, all of which are also relevant. This project has three components:

1. Invention Disclosure

: Handed out last week, an invention disclosure (ID) is to be prepared by each PhD student and distributed to his team members. The team should discuss the disclosure to ensure all members understand the nature of the invention and any related drawings. The PhD student may need to modify the ID after this team discussion. The ID is to be handed in along with the other project documents.

2. Prior Art Search: Each member of the team is to be involved in searching the prior art for the ID. You are not allowed to use Nerac for this project. The team members will decide among themselves how to share and divide the search responsibilities, so long as each team member searches a variety of databases (patent and non-patent databases; foreign and domestic). Each team member is to record on a Patent Search Worksheet or comparable means where he or she searched (e.g. Japanese patent abstracts in LexisNexis database), how he or she searched, giving specific Boolean or natural language search requests, and what he or she found. Use as many worksheets as needed and submit all

worksheets (do not retain copies) with the other project documents. There is no set minimum or maximum number of references required; the searching portion of the grade will be largely based on quality and thoroughness, not quantity. You are free to create your own forms for reporting search results, so long as the format is clear and concise.

3. Search and Analysis Summary Letter: Each team will produce a letter drafted by the patent JD student. The patent JD student is responsible for getting information from the other team members on the scope of each person’s search and the most relevant patents and other documents. In practice, the patent attorney may receive a search report from a patent searcher, analyze it, and convey results to the client. This is not a patentability opinion; this is just a summary letter. The letters should be addressed to your professor (ie, Professor McKeon) and should be 1-2 pages in length; the sample on page 6/14 of the chapter handout can be used as a guide. As the sample letter shows, an in-depth analysis of each reference is not required and is in fact not desired; however, the


letter should point out particularly relevant patents or other references and should briefly mention why they are perceived as relevant or what aspect of the reference merits particular attention. Copies of the five most relevant references should be submitted with the summary letter.

JD students: do not state an ultimate conclusion regarding the patentability of the invention. Rather, conclude with a statement such as “the contemplated invention may require further consideration before moving forward with the patenting process” if you think some of the references may prove problematic. If you have a particularly damaging reference or negative comments, do not put those in writing. Always convey those orally to the client, otherwise the written statements may come back to haunt both you and your client. At the top of each letter (and each page) should be a heading in boldface type “Attorney Client Privilege - Attorney Work Product.” No copies or drafts of the letter should be retained. A hardcopy of the letter should be turned in.

At the conclusion of the project, the team should designate a person (a JD student might be a logical choice) to turn in the following to ____________ before class on ________________:

-One Invention Disclosure; -One set of search worksheets from each team member; -One search and analysis summary letter with the most relevant references attached.

This is a team assignment, so assess your team members’ strengths and maximize them to the team’s advantage. The patent J.D. students are not responsible for doing all of the summarizing of the search, just for putting together the summary letter. Properly apportioning the work and working cooperatively will allow each person to obtain a beneficial learning experience.



PATENT SEARCH WORKSHEET

Sheet ____ of ____ Inventor: _______________________ Brief Description of Invention: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Search Strategy:

____________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________ Database/Source Searched Search Request (i.e. Boolean String, Natural Language, number of items retrieved) Fruitful(Y/N)

____________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________ ____________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________ ____________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________ ____________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________ Relevant Patents, Abstracts, and Other Publications:

_________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ Patent/App # Date(m/d/y) Inventor (Assignee) Comments

_________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ _________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ _________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ _________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ _________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ _________ _________ ______________________ ____________________________________________________________ Patent Searcher: ___________________________________________ Date: ______________









TN Exhibit 6





Teaching Note Exhibit 7 CLAIM DRAFTING TEAM ASSIGNMENT Each team should draft a set of about 3-6 claims for the invention described here, keeping the prior art described below in mind. Although you may be able to find a patent or related patents, DO NOT SEARCH patent databases for similar claims. Work with your team and prepare a draft set of claims using only this material. One member of the group should present the invention and claims to the rest of the class, taking no more than about 5 minutes.

The Invention

A sleeping bag designed to provide an adjustable inner volume that can be decreased in cold weather and increased in warm weather. The sleeping bag includes a number of drawstring cords, which are optionally elastic, around the width of the bag. The drawstrings serve to tighten at least the upper surface of the bag around the person inside the bag. The lower surface of the bag optionally is a mattress that lacks the drawstrings, so that discomfort caused by sleeping on the drawstrings is avoided. The drawstrings are within sleeves that are adherent to the surface of the bag. Prior Art Consider only the following prior art: A sleeping bag with a drawstring cord around the opening of the bag , which can be tightened to show only the face of the person in the bag. A sleeping bag with at least two elastic bands around the circumference of the width of the sleeping bag.


CLAIM DRAFTING TEAM ASSIGNMENT Each team should draft a set of about 3-6 claims for the invention described here, keeping the prior art described below in mind. Although you may be able to find a patent or related patents, DO NOT SEARCH patent databases for similar claims. Work with your team and prepare a draft set of claims using only this material. One member of the group should present the invention and claims to the rest of the class, taking no more than about 5 minutes.

The Invention

A cordless jump rope that simulates the effects of jumping rope but does not utilize an actual rope. Two handles are provided similar in appearance to jump rope handles. At the end of the handle, where the rope would typically be, a donut-shaped enclosure is provided and mounted to the handle along its symmetrical axis. Inside of each donut-shaped enclosure, a weighted ball that rotates around a circular chamber within the enclosure. When rotated, the weighted balls generate rotational torque to simulate the use of a jump rope. Prior Art Consider only the following prior art: A standard jump rope. A baby rattle.


CLAIM DRAFTING TEAM ASSIGNMENT Each team should draft a set of about 3-6 claims for the invention described here, keeping the prior art described below in mind. Although you may be able to find a patent or related patents, DO NOT SEARCH patent databases for similar claims. Work with your team and prepare a draft set of claims using only this material. One member of the group should present the invention and claims to the rest of the class, taking no more than about 5 minutes.

The Invention

A removable pliable water-repellent cover adapted to extend loosely and continuously over an entire infant car seat or stroller except for a central face opening. The cover is designed for seats in which the infant is reclined. It has a peripheral elastic element that encircles the seat to hold the cover in place. The cover is entirely without rigid framing of its own. Prior Art Consider only the following prior art: A rain cape or poncho. A canopy for an infant seat.


Bibliography

Bagley, M., “The New Invention Creation Boundary in Patent Law,” (forthcoming, WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. 2009).

Articles and Books

Bagley, M. “The Need for Speed (and Grace): Issues in a First-Inventor-To-File World,” 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1035 (2008). Bessen, J. & Meurer, M. “Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk,” (Princeton Univ. Press 2008). Dutfield, G. “Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Sciences Industries: Past, Present and Future,” (2nd

Ed. World Scientific, forthcoming 2009).

Ho, C., “On Breaking Patents: Separating Strands of Fact from Fiction under TRIPS,” available at http://works.bepress.com/cynthia_ho/1/. Jaffe, A. and Lerner, J., “Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and What to Do About It,” (2003). Lemley, M. & Sampat, B., “Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp?” available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999098 (2008). Rai, A., Allison, J., Sampat, B., and Crossman, C. “University Software Ownership: Technology Transfer or Business as Usual.available at

Work in Progress,” http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1629/1/university_software_ownership.pdf (2007).

Safrin, S. “Chain Reaction: How Property Begets Property,” 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1917 (2007).

Quanta v. LG, 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008). Cases

KSR v.Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). MedImmune v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). Tafas v. Doll, (Fed. Cir. 2009) (available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1352.pdf). In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

http://works.bepress.com/cynthia_ho/1/�

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999098�

http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1629/1/university_software_ownership.pdf�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007�

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1352.pdf�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation�

Documents

Teaching Note for Chapter 4 - TI:GER Programtiger.gatech.edu/files/KauffmanPresentations/Teachingnote_Ch4.pdf · Chapter 4 Teaching Note. 1. ... system for obtaining and enforcing