The majority of the readings for this course are freely available in the public domain.
| SES # | TOPICS | ASSIGNED READINGS |
|---|---|---|
| PART 1: Introduction | ||
| 1 | Historical and philosophical background of patents and other intellectual property |
Optional Reading:Rines, Robert H. 1964. Create or Perish: The Case for Inventions and Patents (PDF - 1.0MB). Acropolis. |
| 2 |
The U.S. patent system: the Constitution, Congress, Patent Office (PTO), and courts Analyzing and understanding judicial opinions |
U.S. Constitution, Article, 1 Sec. 8 (PDF) Excerpts from U.S. Government Manual (PDF), 2011, and from “Court Systems of the United States.” Federal Courts and What They Do (PDF). Federal Judicial Center (FJC), n.d. “Sample Patent” (PDF) for use with the following video: “Introduction to the Patent System,” FJC #4342-V/02, Oct. 2002. |
| PART 2: Comparative overview of patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks | ||
| 3 |
Legal fundamentals of patent protection for useful inventions Design and plant patents |
35 U.S.C. (Patents), excerpts (PDF) Diamond v. Diehr (PDF), 450 U.S. 175 (1981) |
| 4 |
Legal fundamentals of copyright protection Similarity and access Expression vs. ideas and information, merger |
17 U.S.C. (Copyrights), excerpts (PDF) Bagley, and Dauchy. Chapter 14 in The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Business Law. Cengage Learning, 2011, pp. 529–42. ISBN: 9780538466462. [Preview with Google Books] Selle v. Gibb (PDF), 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (PDF), 499 U.S. 340 (1991) |
| 5 |
Fair use of copyrighted works (e.g., for classroom use) Contributory copyright infringement |
17 U.S.C. § 107 (Fair use) (PDF) Cambridge University Press v. Becker (PDF), ___ F.Supp. ___ (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2012) No. 1:08-CV1425-ODE MGM v. Grokster (PDF), 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005) |
| 6 |
Critical differences between patent and copyright protection Copyright infringement distinguished from plagiarism |
Baker v. Selden (PDF), 101 U.S. 99 (1897) Lotus v. Borland (PDF), 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), affirmed, per curiam, 516 U.S. 233 (1996) |
| 7 | Legal fundamentals of trade-secret protection |
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, abridged, NCCUSL (1985) (PDF) Bagley, and Dauchy. Chapter 14 in The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Business Law. Cengage Learning, 2011, pp. 518–29. ISBN: 9780538466462. [Preview with Google Books] Wexler v. Greenberg (PDF), 399 Pa. 569 (1960) |
| 8 | Legal fundamentals of trademark protection |
15 U.S.C., Ch. 22 (Trademarks), excerpts (PDF) Bagley, and Dauchy. Chapter 14 in The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Business Law. Cengage Learning, 2011, pp. 558–69. ISBN: 9780538466462. [Preview with Google Books] Lois Sportswear v. Levi Strauss (PDF), 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) |
| PART 3: Requirements and limitations of patentability | ||
| 9 |
New and useful: (A) The legal requirement of novelty (B) First to invent vs. first inventor to file |
35 U.S.C. § 102 (Old and new) (PDF) Structural Rubber Products v. Park Rubber (PDF - 1.6MB), 749 F.2d 707 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Pfaff v. Wells (PDF), 525 U.S. 55 (1998) |
| 10 | The legal requirement of non-obviousness |
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Non-obvious subject matter) (PDF) Graham v. John Deere Co. (PDF), 383 U.S. 1 (1966) KSR International v. Teleflex (PDF), 550 U.S. 398 (2007) |
| 11 |
Statutory subject matter and judicial exceptions: (A) Patentability of algorithms, software, and business methods |
State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group (PDF), 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Bilski v. Kappos (PDF), 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010) |
| 12 |
Statutory subject matter and judicial exceptions: (B) Patentability of medical treatments and human genes |
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs (PDF) 566 U.S. ___ (No. 10–1150. March 20, 2012). Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (PDF), 569 U.S. ___ (No. 12–398; June 13, 2013) |
| PART 4: The process of applying for a patent (“patent prosecution”) | ||
| 13 |
Anatomy of a patent application Adequate disclosure |
35 U.S.C. § 112 (Specification) (PDF) 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.71-1.77 (Patents, trademarks, copyrights) (PDF) |
| 14 | The art of drafting patent claims |
File history and cited prior patents for U.S. Patent No. 4,408,919 (PDF - 2.2MB) Morse’s “Claim 8.” O’Reilly v. Morse. Case: 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 1853. |
| 15 |
Patent searching: (A) Purposes and techniques |
No readings |
| 16 |
Patent searching: (B) On-line tools available to MIT students |
No readings |
| PART 5: Actions for patent infringement | ||
| 17 |
Interpretation of claims Doctrine of equivalents Product testing as a possibly infringing use Doctrine of exhaustion |
Markman v. Westview Instruments (PDF), 517 U.S. 370 (1996) Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (PDF), 520 U.S. 17 (1997) Roche v. Bolar (PDF), 733 F.2d 858, (1984) Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et. al. (PDF) ___ U.S. ___ (No. 11–769; May 13, 2013) |
| 18 | Legal and equitable remedies for infringement |
Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood (PDF), 318 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) e_Bay v. MercExchange_ (PDF), 547 U.S. 388 (2006) |
| 19 | Anatomy of patent litigation | U.S. Patent No. 7, 314, 044 “Marine Emissions Control” (PDF) |
| 20 | Courtroom visit to current patent trial: Federal Courthouse, Boston | No readings |
|
PART 6: Other important issues |
||
| 21 | Student presentations of patent-search results | No readings |
| 22 |
(A) Patent licensing (B) Non-competition agreements |
An Inventor’s Guide to Technology Transfer at MIT (PDF - 2.1MB) Marx, Matt. “The Firm Strikes Back: Non-compete Agreements and the Mobility of Technical Professionals.” American Sociological Review 76, no. 5 (2011): 695–712. |
| 23 | Rights and obligations among co-inventors, co-authors, employers, and licensees | Sample agreement documents (PDF) |
