Patent Law

Patent Law Outline Table of Contents

I. Introduction to Patent Law 6

e. Patent Claim Drafting 11

II. The Requirements of Patentability 12

a. Patentable Subject Material 12

i. Introduction - Diamond v. Chakarbarty 12

1. O’Reilly v. Morse (1854) – claiming a general result or principle not patentable vs. claiming a specific means or mechanism which is patentable. 14

2. Telephone Cases (1888) 14

v. Patenting Natural Substances and Living Things 15

1. Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford & Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1911) 15

2. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948) 15

3. Human Beings 16

vi. Software 17

1. Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) 17

3. Diamond v. Diehr 17

vii. Expansion 18

1. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group (Fed. Cir. 1998) - Expansion 18

ix. Medical Procedures 20

x. Contraction 20

1. Lab. Corp. of America v. Metabolite Labs., Inc. (2006) 20

b. Utility 21

i. – invention must be useful (easy to satisfy) 21

iii. 3 Kinds of Utility: Operational, beneficial, and Substabtial/practical 21

b. Lowel v. Lewis (C.C.D. Mass. 1817) 22

c. Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1999) 22

1. Brenner v. Manson (1966) 23

2. In re Brana (Fed. Cir. 1995) 24

c. Disclosure and enablement – quid pro quo – grant exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure and enablement 24

i. 4 Requirements of disclosure and enablement 24

iv. Enablement 25

1. The Incandescent Lamp Patent (1895) 25

2. In re Strahilevitz (C.C.P.A. 1982) 26

c. Prophetic examples may enable 27

v. The Written Description Requirement 27

8. The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1998) 28

9. University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003) 29

vi. Claim Definiteness 30

1. Requirement of Claim Definiteness 30

2. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel...