In the case of ClearValue v. Pearl River Polymers, there was a dispute over a "process for clarifying water using a flocculated suspension of aluminum along with high molecular weight quarternized polymers." The inventor and CEO of ClearValue, Richard Haase sued Pearl River Polymers, who used to be their former customer but later began making their own version of the process.
Pearl River claimed that this invention could easily have been "anticipated" based on descriptions given in a previously existing patent, and therefore should be deemed obvious. However, "under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim will be anticipated and therefore invalid if a single prior art reference describes 'each and every claim limitation and enable[s] one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.'" This requirement necessitates that the defendant be able to demonstrate a clear connection between every aspect of the new patent and the descriptions of the old patent. Since the defendant was unable to do so, the appeals court ultimately did not rule in their favor.
The issue of anticipation brings up several interesting questions regarding the patenting process. If prior art sets up descriptions that have the ability to predict a new technology, is that technology really obvious? Well, if a PHOSITA (person having skill in the art) would have been able to deduce this connection between the prior art and the new technology, then perhaps; however, we cannot just make assumptions without truly examining the new technology.
Source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/02/genus-species-anticipation.html
Pearl River claimed that this invention could easily have been "anticipated" based on descriptions given in a previously existing patent, and therefore should be deemed obvious. However, "under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim will be anticipated and therefore invalid if a single prior art reference describes 'each and every claim limitation and enable[s] one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.'" This requirement necessitates that the defendant be able to demonstrate a clear connection between every aspect of the new patent and the descriptions of the old patent. Since the defendant was unable to do so, the appeals court ultimately did not rule in their favor.
The issue of anticipation brings up several interesting questions regarding the patenting process. If prior art sets up descriptions that have the ability to predict a new technology, is that technology really obvious? Well, if a PHOSITA (person having skill in the art) would have been able to deduce this connection between the prior art and the new technology, then perhaps; however, we cannot just make assumptions without truly examining the new technology.
Source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/02/genus-species-anticipation.html
No comments:
Post a Comment