1 / 23

Tina McKeon, Ph.D. FIRE Series: University of Rochester Medical Center Office of Technology Transfer

ulf
Download Presentation

Tina McKeon, Ph.D. FIRE Series: University of Rochester Medical Center Office of Technology Transfer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    2. The U.S. Patent Office and the Courts Fed courts hear patent cases. Appeals from US PTO typically to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Infringement suits or suits for a declaratory judgment of invalidity are brought in district court, which also appeals to CAFC.Fed courts hear patent cases. Appeals from US PTO typically to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Infringement suits or suits for a declaratory judgment of invalidity are brought in district court, which also appeals to CAFC.

    3. Infringement Patents grant their owners the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention. Unauthorized practice is infringement. Direct infringement Making the invention Using the invention Selling the invention Offering the invention for sale Importing the invention Indirect infringement Inducing infringement Contributing to infringement

    4. Issued Patent Right to Exclude NOT an affirmative right A ticket to the courthouse

    5. Infringement How is infringement determined? Determine the scope of the claim(s) Compare the elements of the claim to the composition or method accused of infringement using the “all elements” rule: every element required by the claim must be present in the accused composition or method either literally or under Doctrine of Equivalents Claim construction in the form of a Markman hearing DOE next slideClaim construction in the form of a Markman hearing DOE next slide

    6. Elements recited Here is our invention – sandwich comprising two pieces of bread, a piece of cheese, a meat patty, and a salad “wad”Here is our invention – sandwich comprising two pieces of bread, a piece of cheese, a meat patty, and a salad “wad”

    7. Accused Burger I Edible salad component, meat, cheese, two pieces of breadEdible salad component, meat, cheese, two pieces of bread

    8. Accused Burger II Now let’s consider this reference without the cheese.Now let’s consider this reference without the cheese.

    9. Literal Infringement Analysis

    10. Non-literal Infringement Analysis If equivalent then =infringmeent; Would the noncorrugated coffee cup holder infringe the Starbucks claim with corrugated? If claim was amended to include the phrase corrugated to get around a piece of prior art, then certainly no DOE! Applicant gave it up.If equivalent then =infringmeent; Would the noncorrugated coffee cup holder infringe the Starbucks claim with corrugated? If claim was amended to include the phrase corrugated to get around a piece of prior art, then certainly no DOE! Applicant gave it up.

    11. Exceptions to Infringement Research or De minimis Exception Exception related to FDA approval

    12. Research Exception Narrow exception “For amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry”

    13. Madey v. Duke Former faculty member sued the university for infringing his patented free electron laser technology University moved to dismiss the complaint based on experimental use by a nonprofit research institution Court rejected research exception because the infringing activities were in furtherance of Duke’s commercial activities (educating students and obtaining grant support) Employees at a research university may infringe valid patents when conducting their research activities!

    14. FDA Exception It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention…. solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.

    15. Integra LifeSciences v. Merck KGaA Integra’s patents claimed RGD peptides. Merck KGaA (and Scripps) used the claimed RGD peptides to develop non-infringing agents. Integra sued Merck (and Scripps) for infringement Merck argued that they were not infringing because their work with Scripps falls under the statutory safe harbor provision.

    16. Integra Life Sciences v. Merck KGaA (cont.) Supreme Court: Merck’s preclinical use of the patented peptides falls within the safe harbor; their use was sufficiently related to the FDA approval process

    17. Integra Life Sciences v. Merck KGaA (cont.) Practical impact for patent holder: Try to claim methods of using your compounds for research (e.g., as controls); the law is more unsettled regarding any exception for research Try to claim your compounds bound to some physical structure (e.g., bound to an assay plate or bead) Practical impact for non-patent holder Document uses related to future FDA approval

    18. Defenses Invalidity Unenforceability (inequitable conduct) Improper inventorship

    19. Invalidity The claimed subject matter was not new The claimed subject matter was obvious The specification is not a sufficient written description The specification does not enable others to practice the invention claimed

    20. Inequitable Conduct Each person associated with prosecuting an application in the USPTO has a duty of candor to the Office Must provide information that would be material to patentability (if in doubt, disclose!) Must not provide false information Often raised as a defense to charge of infringement Requires both intent to deceive PTO and materiality (relevance) of the information If duty of candor is violated, entire patent is unenforceable Practical impact: Check the Invention Disclosure Statement and make sure all of the statements in the application and those made during its prosecution are accurate. Includes licensees This is not assessed by the PTO – comes up inevitably in an infrginemetn suit as a defense to infrginementIncludes licensees This is not assessed by the PTO – comes up inevitably in an infrginemetn suit as a defense to infrginement

    21. Remedies Patent Act provides for both injunctive relief for patent infringement and damages; no less than a reasonable royalty (if cannot prove lost profits) If product not marked, no damages until actual notice of infringement given. Enhanced damages (up to 3x) and attorney’s fees may be awarded in exceptional cases Damages usually arise only after issuance but Provisional rights can give rise to damages after publication of the claims Exceptional case - willfulnessDamages usually arise only after issuance but Provisional rights can give rise to damages after publication of the claims Exceptional case - willfulness

    22. Medical practitioner exception to remedies No remedies are available from “a medical practitioner or a related medical entity” with respect to a “medical practitioner’s performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement”

    23. Summary Infringement is the unauthorized use of an invention claimed in a valid patent Exceptions and defenses to patent infringement are relevant to university employees Take steps to make your own patents strong (valid, enforceable and with proper inventorship) Take steps to avoid infringing a third party’s patent Remedies and damages can be substantial

More Related