1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept. 24 2003

2. Review: “Newness” Novelty s. 102(a), ss. 102(e) Statutory bars s. 102(b)

3. Exception to Public Use Statutory Bar

4. Experimental Use Exception : City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. CB 163 (1877)

5. Other Newness Criteria S. 102(c) - abandonment S. 102(d) – certain foreign applications S. 102(g) – lack of reasonable diligence can cause priority to be lost

6. Problem 3-7 Based on Alcoa v. Reynolds Metals, 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1170 (N.D. I. 1989)

7. Problem 3-8 Based on National Research Development Corp. v. Varian Assoc., 822 F. Supp. 1121 (D.N.J. 1993), aff’d in part, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

8. PRIORITY 102(g)(1) 102(g)(2) First to invent vs. First to File

9. HYPO G conceives June 30 1981 G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 K files patent application Jan 14 1984 Who has priority?

10. HYPO G conceives June 30 1981 G reduces to practice Nov. 16 1982 K files patent application Jan 14 1984 Who has priority?

11. HYPO 2 G conceives June 30 1981 K files for U.S. patent Nov. 17 1982 G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984 Who has priority?

12. HYPO 3 G conceives June 30 1981 K conceives Jan 1 1982 K reduces to practice Nov 11 1982 G reduces to practice Jan 11 1984 Priority? Whose, if any, diligence matters?

14. PRIOR USER RIGHTS To what extent do these exist in U.S. patent law?

15. Non-Obviousness S. 103 Purpose? Interpretation Graham v. John Deere