Intensive Patent Law Training Workshop
Syllabus
July 23-25, 2009
Seattle, Washington
|
Date
|
Basic Topics
|
Background Reading for Basic Topics:
|
Enrichment Topics
|
| |
Morning Session
(9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) |
Corresponding pages in
Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition (copy provided to each workshop participant): |
Afternoon Session
(1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) |
| |
|
|
|
| Thursday, July 23, 2009 |
Patent Claims: |
|
Claim Definiteness Requirement:
Background: see Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition, pp. 68-77.
Recent Federal Circuit Decisions:
1. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
2. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. 2008).
3. Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18160 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
4. Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21013 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
5. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 53 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
6. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. 2008).
|
| |
Centrality of Claims; Notice Function; Right to Exclude |
65-68; 332-334. |
| |
Anatomy of a Patent Claim |
78-84. |
| |
Claim Drafting Conventions and Interpretation “Canons” |
84-86; 347-349. |
| |
Evidentiary Hierarchy:
The Phillips Debate |
337-344. |
|
|
Judge vs. Jury: Markman
|
334-336; 344-347.
|
| |
Appellate Review: Cybor |
346-347. |
| |
|
|
|
| Friday, July 24, 2009 |
Disclosure Requirements: |
|
Inequitable Conduct:
Background: see Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition, pp. 431-442.
Recent Federal Circuit Decisions:
1. Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 504 F.3d 1223, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23733 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
2. Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 60 USPQ2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
3. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 536 F.3d 1247, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16420 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
|
| |
Enablement |
97-113. |
| |
Best Mode |
113-121. |
| |
Written Description of the Invention |
121-133. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Saturday, July 25, 2009 |
Patent Enforcement: |
|
Remedies:
Background: see Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition, Chapter 11.
Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Decisions:
1. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
2. Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories, 512 F.3d 1363, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 976 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
3. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20156 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
4. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Sales Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26519 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Willfulness:
Background: see Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition, Chapter 11.
Recent Federal Circuit Decisions:
1. In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc).
2. Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8404 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
3. Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21013 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
4. Depuy Spine, Inc.v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12389 (June 1, 2009).
|
| |
Infringement: Two-Step Analysis |
331; 349. |
| |
Literal and Doctrine of Equivalents |
325-326; 349-360. |
| |
Indirect Infringement: Active Inducement and Contributory Infringement |
383-389. |
| |
Drafting Claims to Maximize Direct Infringement |
326-331. |
| |
Prosecution History Estoppel |
361-376. |
| |
Vitiation of Claim Limitations |
380-382. |
|