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, 60 P.T.C.J. 301 (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

        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                           6-1-98
        Y invents                     1-1-97
        Both file                       1-1-99

        Who wins?

4.    HYPO:

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

         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

         C.    Enabling disclosure

                 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 overlaying
                                    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

            B.    Employment law relating to IP = state law

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

   2.     Sale of components - § 271(c)

   3.     Requires a kind of scienter

    C.     Doctrine of equivalents

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

    2.     Limitations on the doctrine of equivalents

   a.     Patentee cannot broaden claim to point where it  would have been patentable at time patent 
           issued

    b.     Is change made substantial?  Hilton Davis, p. 1055

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

    4.     Jury question?  Yes

    5.     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. Hewlitt-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)

IX.      Transfers, Licenses & Misuse

            A.    Assignments

                    1.   Must be in writing

                    2.   Relinquishment of rights by inventor

            B.    Licenses

                    1.    Exclusive vs. nonexclusive licenses

                    2.    Typical terms

                            a.    Duration

                            b.    Manufacture, use or sale

                            c.    Field of use

                            d.    Geographic use

                            e.    Quantity

                            f.    Consideration

              C.    Franchises

     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

     A.     Three major points
 
              1.     Ordinarily patentee awarded injunction,

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

              3.     Other forms of preliminary relief may be available.

      B.    Injunctions

    1.     Preliminary

    2.     Permanent

      C.    Monetary damages

    1.    Damages - § 284 "adequate damages to compensate

           a.    Difference in profits and damages

           b.     Treble damages - discretionary

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

          2.     Whether infringer investigated scope of patent, &

          3.     Infringer’s behavior as party to the litigation

      2.     Reasonable royalty rate

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

    b.     If not, look to industry

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

    D.     Attorneys fees - exceptional circumstances - § 285

  A.     Invalidity

  B.     Fraudulent procurement

  C.     Violation of antitrust laws

  D.     Equitable defenses