html5-img
1 / 31

Utility

Utility. 8.26.2010 Patent Law Prof Merges. Interim Guidelines. Casebook Supplement pp. 43-47 Many factors; attempt to implement very broadly-worded Supreme Court opinion in Bilski. Utility – Section 101. Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture, . . . .

zachariah
Download Presentation

Utility

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

  1. Utility 8.26.2010 Patent Law Prof Merges

  2. Interim Guidelines • Casebook Supplement pp. 43-47 • Many factors; attempt to implement very broadly-worded Supreme Court opinion in Bilski

  3. Utility – Section 101 Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture, . . .

  4. Main Trouble Areas • No known utility (“perpetual motion machines”) • Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 [ 11 USPQ2d 1340] (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable) • Malicious utility • a "useful" invention is one "which may be applied to a beneficial use in society, in contradistinction to an invention injurious to the morals, health, or good order of society, or frivolous and insignificant"

  5. Third major trouble area • Chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech-related inventions • Why? The nature of chemistry-related research • Structures (molecules) and their uses . . .

  6. Justice Story View • Appendix, Note on the Patent Laws, 3 Wheat. 13, 24. See also Justice Story's decisions on circuit in Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. 1018 (No. 8568) (C. C. D. Mass.), and Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed Cas. 37 (No. 1217) (C. C. D. Mass.).

  7. Brenner v Manson • This is not to say that we mean to disparage the importance of contributions to the fund of scientific information short of the invention of something "useful," or that we are blind to the prospect that what now seems without "use" may tomorrow command the grateful attention of the public.

  8. Brenner, cont’d • But a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion. "[A] patent system must be related to the world of commerce rather than to the realm of philosophy. * * *"

  9. In re Brana 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436 C.A.Fed. 1995

  10. Brana, cont’d

  11. R1-R4: Markush groups N: Markush group

  12. Brana cont’d • FDA approval, however, is not a prerequisite for finding a compound useful within the meaning of the patent laws. Usefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.. Were we to require Phase II testing in order to prove utility, the associated costs would prevent many companies from obtaining patent protection on promising new inventions, thereby eliminating an incentive to pursue, through research and development, potential cures in many crucial areas such as the treatment of cancer. -- 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436, 1443

  13. Working Model or Prototype; in vivo effectiveness Promising Experimental Results: Brenner v. Manson Promising Clinical Results, e.g., in vitro – In re Brana Project Initiation: Pure Concept Stage

  14. The Oklahoma Land Rush – A Good Use of Resources?

  15. Mining Claim Systems: Require-ments and Timing Issues

  16. Some quick economics Terry L. Anderson & Peter J. Hill, The Race for Property Rights, 33 J.L. & Econ. 177 (1990) David D. Haddock, First Possession Versus Optimal Timing: Limiting the Dissipation of Economic Value, 64 Wash. U. L.Q. 775 (1986). Dean Lueck, The Rule of First Possession and the Design of the Law, 38 J.L. & Econ. 393 (1995)

  17. Terry L. Anderson – Montana State; Hoover Institution David Haddock, Northwestern Law School

  18. Ex Parte Fischer • Major case involving “expressed sequence tags” • Utility the key issue: did inventors demonstrate patentable utility as of the filing date of the patent?

  19. Fischer claim 1: p. 241 A substantially purified nucleic acid molecule that encodes a maize protein or fragment thereof comprising a nucleic acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 through SEQ ID NO: 5.

  20. Ex Parte Fischer • Claim 1, Casebook p. 241 • “Substantially purified” – echoes of Parke-Davis • “Selected from the group consisting of . . .” • What is this claim form?

  21. “An article of clothing, selected from the group consisting of Shirts Shoes Pants” “A chemical entity selected from the group consisting of Carbon COOH CH(6)” Markush Group

  22. Expressed Sequence Tags Most DNA: Unknown Function EST: Short “Tag” The good stuff: DNA that codes for a protein

  23. Multiple Biotechnology Patents: SNP/EST Example A Owns SNP_1 (Or EST_1) B Owns SNP_2/EST_2 C Owns SNP_3/EST_3

  24. Fischer • What utilities are claimed? – P. 3 • “determining a relationship between a polymorphism and a plant trait” • “isolating a genetic region . . . Or mapping” • “determining [protein] levels . . .”

  25. Fischer - holding • P 22 • Immediate utility is to conduct further experiments • Too attenuated under Brenner and Brana

  26. “Expressed Sequence Tag” Patents: policy issues • Bad Idea! Eisenberg & Merges opinion letter, 1995 • Patent law’s “utility requirement” bars these patents • Why? “Rent Seeking” Dominates incentive motive;Transaction Costs a Major Issue

  27. Transaction Costs B C A Firm E End Product

  28. Transaction Costs II B A C End Product End Product End Product

More Related