VI.     Priority (Cont'd)

         D.    Conception = complete mental concept of the operative
                 invention

1.     Must be sufficiently complete to enable one with
        ordinary skill in the art to reduce the conception to
        practice

2.  HYPO:

        A working model                3-1-99
        B mechanical drawing      4-10-99

3.    Corroboration

        a.    Manifestation

        b.    Corroboration requires appreciation &
                disinterest

                1.    Singh v. Brake, 222 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.
                       2000)

                2.     Some experimentation okay

                3.    Appreciation

4.     If no proof of inventive activity, date of filing =
        date of conception
 

E.     First to file

F.    Diligence - relationship to RTP

        1.    RTP requires proof that embodiment actually worked
               for its intended purpose

 2.     Reasonable diligence

   a.     Definition:  continued application to task
           of RTP

   b.    Efforts toward commercial exploitation
          do not contribute to RTP

  c.    Diligence period - from just before
         conception by 2d party

3. HYPO:

        X conceives                5-1-96
        X RTP 1-1-97
        Y invents                     6-1-97
        Both file                       1-1-99

        Who wins?

4. HYPO:

        X conceives                  5-1-96
        Y conceives                  3-1-98
        X RTP                            4-1-98
        Y RTP                            6-1-98

        a.     Excuses for gaps

        b.    Reasonable diligence

G.     Concealment & suppression

        1.    HYPO:

                X conceives                1-94
                X RTP                           1-95
                Y invents & files        10-97
                Y's patent issues        1-99
                X files                            4-99

        2.    Forfeiture rule

H.    Priority HYPOS

F = Filing date

R = Actual RTP

C = Conception

a = senior party

b = junior party
 
 

1.     Fa Fb

2.     Rb Fa Fb

3.     Ra Rb Fa Fb

4.     Cb Fa Fb

5.     Ca Cb Fa Fb

6.     Cb Ra Fa Fb

7.     Cb Ra Rb Fa Fb

8.     Cb Ca Ra Rb Fa Fb

9.     Ca Cb Ra Fa Fb

10.     Ca Cb Ra Rb Fa Fb

         A.    Description - broad enough to support claim
 

                2.    Possession test

                        a.    Construction of physical embodiment,

                        b.    Reduction to drawings (echoing Pfaff), or

                        c.    Sufficiently detailed identifying characteristics such as:

                                1.    Chemical structure, properties or functional
                                        characteristics coupled with

                                2.    Known or disclosed correlation between
                                        function & structure

      B.    Specification

                1.    Title of invention

                 2.    Abstract of disclosure

                 3.    Cross references to related applications, if any

                 4.    Brief summary of invention

                 5.    Brief description w/ drawings

                 6.    Detailed description

                 7.    Claim or claims

                 8.    Signature of inventor

                 1.    Description of invention

                 2.    Manner & process of making the invention

                 3.    Manner & process of using the invention

                 4.    Best mode contemplated by inventor

        D.    Best mode

                1.    Amgen, p. 1008 - two-part analysis for best mode

                        a.     Whether at time of filing, inventor knew of a mode
                                of practicing claimed invention that she considered
                                to be better than any other

                        b.     What she knew vs. what she disclosed

               2.    Wahl, note 3, p. 1007, best mode violation depends on:

                        a.    Scope of invention

                        b.    Skill in the art

                        c.    Evidence as to inventor's belief

                        d.    All the circumstances
 

            E.    Claims on a paper stapler

                    1.    A device for stapling paper comprising:

                            a.    a base,

                            b.    a forming anvil on said base having spaced recesses for
                                   shaping the legs of a U-shaped  staple moved against the
                                   anvil

                            c.    a rigid actuator arm pivoted on said base at a point spaced
                                   from said anvil having a portion overlying said anvil and
                                   provided with a storage recess extending along said arm for
                                   receiving and storing U-shaped staples and with a discharge
                                   slot open to said recess positioned on said arm to register
                                   with said forming anvil,

                            d.    Means movable on said actuator arm for using staples in said
                                   slot, and

                            e.    Retractable means on said arm to drive a staple from said
                                   recess through said slot into contact with said forming anvil.

                    2.    Dependent claims also may be used:

                           A device for stapling paper as described in claim in which said
                           retractable means comprises a blade moveable in said slot having
                           a driving end and moveable from a first position above said recess
                           to a second position through said slot, and resilient means positioned
                           on said arm to return said blade to said first position.

VII.    Protection of Inventors

            A.    R/E relations

                    1.    R owns if employment contract

                            a.    Expressly calls for assignment to R

                            b.    If E hired to make a particular invention

                    2.    Shop right

            C.    North Carolina -- § 66-57.1  "Employee's rights to certain
                    inventions

                    1.    Section 66-57.2 = employer's rights

                    2.    Ligget Group Inc. v. Sunas, 113 N.C. App. 19 (1993)

VIII.    Infringement

    A.     Right to exclude others from making, using, selling or
            offering to sell in U.S. - § 271(a)

    1.     If device clearly within words & spirit of claims,
            infringement exists

    2.     BOP

     a.     Existence of infringement = question of fact

     b.     Burden of persuasion = preponderance of the
             evidence

    3.    Independent creation not permitted

            1.     Three major points

              a.     Ordinarily patentee awarded injunction,

              b.     Preliminary injunctions fall in and out of favor, and

              c.     Other forms of preliminary relief may be available.

           2.      Injunctions

      a.     Preliminary

      b.     Permanent

    3.      Monetary damages

      a.    Damages - § 284 "adequate damages to
             compensate

             1.    Difference in profits and damages

             2.     Treble damages - discretionary

                       a.     Require willfulness,deliberate copying
                             of idea or design,

               b.     Whether infringer investigated scope
                       of patent, &

                c.     Infringer’s behavior as party to the
                        litigation

      b.     Reasonable royalty rate

1.     If patentee licenses, use that rate
        for similar contracts

2.     If not, look to industry

3.     Anticipated profits, utility of
        invention as compared to
        unpatented alternatives,
        whether invention is pioneer

    4.     Attorneys fees - exceptional circumstances - § 285

                 a.     Invalidity

                 b.     Fraudulent procurement

                 c.     Violation of antitrust laws

                 d.     Equitable defenses

            1.     Inducement - § 271(b)  -- aiding & abetting

      2.     Sale of components - § 271(c)

      3.     Requires a kind of scienter

D.     Doctrine of equivalents

        1.     Performs substantially the same function in
                 substantially same way to obtain same result

 2.    Every element rule - CAFC

 3.    Reverse doctrine of equivalents - Graver Tank,
        cited p. 1055
 

 4.     Limitations on the doctrine of equivalents -- Is change
         made substantial?  Hilton Davis, p. 1055

5.    Jury question?  Yes

6.     Prosecution history estoppel ( "file wrapper
        estoppel")

            1.    Markman, cited p. 1055 -- claims construction = question
                    of law

                    a.    District courts now struggling  -  Elf Atochem North
                            America, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford, 897 F. Supp. 844
                            (D. Del. 1995).  Courts have three options:

                            1.    Resolve disputes on paper record,

                            2.    Hold trial to resolve disputes, or

                            3.    Wait until trial & attempt to resolve claims
                                   disputes before jury instructed

                    b.    Federal Circuit beginning to provide guidance, but
                            often conflicting

                            1.    Fact-intensive inquiry

               2.     Expert testimony -- see Pitney Bowes,
                        Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed.
                        Cir. 1999)

                3.    Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, 139 F.3d
                        1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

ISSUE	FACT (JURY)	LAW (JUDGE)
Novelty	X
Nonobviousness		X
Statutory bars	X
Infringement	X
Equivalents	X
Claims		X

                1.    Control after first sale  -- exhaustion of patent right

                2.    Repair and reconstruction (similar to fair use in copyright)

            A.    Assignments

                    1.   Must be in writing

                    2.   Relinquishment of rights by inventor

            B.    Licenses

                    1.    Exclusive vs. nonexclusive licenses

                            a.    Duration

                            b.    Manufacture, use or sale

                            c.    Field of use

                            d.    Geographic use

                            e.    Quantity

                            f.    Consideration

            C.    Fanchises

     D.    Licenses and patent misuse

1.    Limitations on contract terms

        a.     Patentee not required to pay royalties beyond
                the end of patent term - Brulotte v. Thys

 b.     No licensee estoppel - Lear v. Adkins

2.     Antitrust

3.     Tying (misuse)

4.    Grant-back clauses