1. International/Foreign Activities
Paris Convention
Prior user rights – article 4(b) p. 510
Westinghouse case and variants
Recent plant cases
Recent developments
China joined WTO 2001

2. Prior User Rights Do not exist under US law
EXCEPT business method patents, 35 USC 273
Well-known in foreign patent law
Theoretical case in favor of them

3. The case for prior user rights
Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Independent Invention Defense in Intellectual Property, 69 Economica (2002)
Prior user rights efficient if cost of duplicating invention are not too high
John S. Liebovitz, Note, Inventing a Nonexclusive Patent System, 111 Yale L.J (2002).

4. Westinghouse 6.28.1905 Armstrong files US Spring, 1904 5.4.04
De Kando builds invention on Valtellina Railway, Italy
5.4.04
Waterman brings knowledge of DeKando into US

5. Westinghouse holding
Foreign activity communicated to person entering US cannot establish conception date in US
NB: role of old statute section 4923
“foreign patent or publication” the only relevant foreign activities under US law

6. Westinghouse fine points
Priority vs anticipation
See p 520
Neither party gets patent? Both anticipated?
ONLY Armstrong patent validity at issue in Westinghouose case
Priority would be a different matter!

7. Priority rules Thomas case p. 521
Foreign activity can be used to establish US priority date WHEN INFO ENTERS US
See cases in Badie article p. 521

8. Recent plant patent controversy
In re Zary and In re Elsner
Foreign public sale of embodiment of US invention
Popeil Bros., 494 F2 162 (7 Cir 1974) (foreign sale of patented item, dscribed in instruction manuals; manuals constitute publication)

9. Foreign sales cont’d LeGrice rule, 301 F2 929 (CCPA 1962)
Supplement disclosure with knowledge of one skilled in art