Dates

TOPICS

Day 1

(1/2)

Sep. 24, 2013

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

■　Fundamentals of U.S. Patent Laws and Unique Features of U.S. Patent

米国特許全般的な基礎知識

-          U.S. Constitution and U.S. Patent Laws

-          Brief History of U.S. Patent Laws (1952 Patent Act; 1995 Act; 1999 Act; 2011 Act)

-          Who is “Inventor”?　(Declaration by Inventor）

-          Can you file a JP application for the invention made in the States?

-          Can you file a US application after disclosure of the invention?

-          Can you make a product if you have a U.S. patent covering the product? 

Right to Exclude v. Right to Practice your Invention

-          What is “IDS”?  Why do we have to produce information adverse to obtain patent?

-          (101条: Patent Eligibility)

-          （102条：　Novelty） Pre-AIA 102 and AIA 102

-          （103条：　Obviousness） Is earlier filed application used as 103 reference?

-          （103条：　Obviousness） STDs to evaluate Obviousness

-          （112条：第1項）W-D；　Enablement；　Best Mode？

-          （112条：第3〜第5項） Independent/Dependent/Multiple-Dependent Claims

-          （112条：第6項） What is “Means plus Function” claim? Good or Bad?

-          Approximate cost to obtain U.S. Patent？

-          How to deal with FINAL OFFICE ACTION

-          Doc. Of Equivalents （JP & US Comparison）

-          Who ultimately interpret claims? Jury or Judges? Do they have technical background?

-          and more….!

■Q&As

Day 1

(2/2)

Sep. 24, 2013

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

■　米国特許法第101条―Patent Eligibility

-          35 U.S.C. 101

-          Case Laws： Chakrabarty (1980); State Street Bank (1997); In re Nuijten (2007); Bilski (2010), Prometheus (2012); and CLS bank (2013); Myriad (2013);

-          Non-patentable subject matters (abstract idea; naturally phenomenon; usable only for illegal purpose; computer-program per se….)

-          PTO’s Guideline in view of Prometheus (2012)　

■　米国特許法第102条 – Novelty under Pre-AIA and AIA

Pre-AIA

AIA

-         102(a)項

-         102(b)項

-         102(e)項

-         PCT出願の場合の102(e) date　

102(a)(1)

102(a)(2)

What constitute prior art?

102(b)(1)(A), (B)

102(b)(2)(A), (B)

102(c)

exceptions

102(d)

“effective filing date”

Day 2

(1/2)

Sep. 25, 2013

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

■    米国特許法第112条

112条第1項―明細書の開示・記載要件

Ø  Written Description – case laws: Gentry Gallery 1998/ Ariad v. Eli Lilly 2010

Ø  Enablement – case laws: United States v. Telectronics 1998/ CMFT v. Yieldup 2003

Ø  Best Mode – case laws: Taltech v. Esquel 2008

112条第2項―クレームの開示・記載要件

Ø  MPEP 2173.01-MPEP2173. 05

112条第3、4、5項―クレーム形式に対する要件

112条第6項―Means + Functionクレーム,

Ø  　In re Donaldson 1994; MPEP 2182; Chiuminata 1998

Ø  Claim scope of non-means and means terms

Ø   Doc. of equivalents v. Equivalents under 112(6)

■    IDS（情報開示義務）に関して:

-          37 CFR 1.56

-          Timeline for IDS submission

-          What is “information material to patentability” under Rule 1.56?

-          What is “concise explanation of relevance” (of Non-English Language Information)?

-          Pre Therasense Decisions (Semiconductor-Energy Lab 2000, Dayco 2003,Star Scientific 2008)

-          Therasense Decision (Fed. Cir. 2011)

-          Post-Therasense Decisions (Powel 2011; Aventis 2012; 1^st Media 2012)

-          Possible Review of Therasense by Sup Ct – SONY Ent. America v. 1^st Media

■Q&As

Day 2

(2/2)

Sep. 24, 2013

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

■　米国特許法第103条―自明性

-          History of obviousness – Hotchkiss v. Greenwood 1850; “Flash of Genius” in Cuno Eng’g 1941; 1952 Act; Graham v. John Deere 1966; KSR v. Teleflex 2007

-          35 U.S.C 103 under Pre-AIA and 35 U.S.C. 103 under AIA

-          Factual inquiries to evaluate Obviousness under Graham v. John Deere 1966

-          KSR v. Teleflex (2007)

-          Examination Guideline in view of KSR – MPEP 2143

Ø  PTO’s Example based on Crocs v. ITC fed. Cir. 2010

-          How to rebut 103 Rejection in light of MPEP2141-2145?

Ø  No teachings/motivations/suggestions to combine the references (MPEP2143.01)

Ø  No reasonable expectation of success (MPEP2143.02);

Ø  Not all the limitations are taught or suggested (MPEP2043.03)

Ø  Teaching Away:

-- References teach away from the invention or references teach away from their combination; (MEP2145.X.D.2)

-- Proposed modification renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation of a reference (MPEP2143.01/MPEP2145.X.D)

Ø  Secondary consideration under Graham v. John-Deere (long-felt need; commercial success; contrary to accepted wisdom; coping by others; …)

Ø  Summary:

■    Recent developments in US Patent Laws/Case Laws/Others

Ø  Interpretation of Product by Process Claim – Abbot v. Sandoz (2009)

Ø  America Invents Act (2011) – post grant proceedings (PGR/IPR/Supp Exam)

Ø  Review of Cybor Decision;

Ø  International copyright exhaustion;

Ø  Is isolated gene patent eligible? Myriad decision 2013;

Ø  Patent right exhaustion – Monsanto v. Bowman 2013;

Ø  Others

■    Q&As