83%(6)5 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 41 - 43 out of 46 pages.
after March 15, 2013. We highlight one of the key changes for newer patents in this section, in the paragraph below on novel inventions.●The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents. To be patentable, an invention must meet several basic criteria. First, it must be the right kind of subject matter. Machines, man-made materials, products, and processes can be patented. One cannot patent natural materials (wood, iron, oxygen, etc) or scientific principles (E = mc2). The line between natural and invented is often blurry, especially in the world of the very small.Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics presents the Supreme Court's very current view on the patentability of human genes. Software also creates some thorny issues, as do attempts to patent business methods.●Second, an item must have utility or accomplish something useful. However, it does not have to be very useful (many toys and novelty items of quite limited societal value have been patented).●Third, an invention cannot be obvious or more than a trivial change to an existing invention.●Fourth, an invention must be novel, that is, one that is not currently in use and that has not beendetailed in print. The rules for novelty can become complicated when two inventors develop something in a similar timeframe. These rules have recently changed under the AIA. Generally, the United States has switched from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. Before the AIA, courts focused on when something was first invented. Now, the focus is on who wins the race tothe patent office. But, certain kinds of disclosures give original inventors a one-year grace period before others can file for patents on their inventions. The assigned reading presents several examples.Key Concept 7: When has a defendant infringed a patent and what are the plaintiff’s remedies●Securing a patent can be quite costly in terms of time, money, and effort. The point of taking thetrouble, of course, is gaining the ability to stop competitors from making use of your invention, process, or material for a period of 20 years.●Literal infringement cases are straightforward. If a defendant makes a product that copies all claims in a plaintiff's patent, then a clear violation has occurred. But what if a defendant's product copies only some parts of a patent claim? In such cases, a court will apply the doctrine of equivalents as described in Larami Corporation v. Alan Amron (the "Super Soaker case").●Whether plaintiffs win by demonstrating a literal infringement or by using the doctrine of equivalents, they are entitled to an injunction and damages. Damages can be substantial and can cover lost profits and royalties on the defendant's sales. If a defendant deliberately infringeson a patent, then a judge may treble the plaintiff's damages and force the defendant's to pay theplaintiff's attorney's fees.