Law of Patents

Chapter 2. Claiming and Disclosing the Invention

Introduction
  1. Claim Interpretation
    1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.
      view pdfPhillips patent No. 4,677,798
      Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
      view pdfBaslow patent No. 4.018,260
      Comments
  2. Enablement
    1. Enablement and Claim Scope
      O’Reilly v. Morse
      view pdfMorse patent No. 1647; Reissue No. 117
      Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co.
      view pdfEdison’s Electric Lamp Patent No. 223,898
      Comments
    2. Policy Perspective: Optimal Claim Scope and Patent Law’s Delicate Balance
      Comparative Perspective: Enablement and Claim Scope in Europe
    3. Enablement and “Undue Experimentation”
      Cedarapids, Inc. v. Nordberg, Inc.
      view pdfCedarapids patent No. 4,697,745
      Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.
      view pdfAutomotive patent No. 5,231,253
      Comments
    4. Comparative Perspective: Complying with Enablement Requirement in Europe
  3. Written Description
    Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company
    view pdfAriad patent No. 6,410,516
    Gentry Gallery v. Berkline
    view pdfGentry Gallery Patent No. 5,064,244
    Comments
  4. Best Mode
    Young Dental Mfg. Co. v. Q3 Special Products, Inc.
    view pdfYoung Patent No. 5,156,547
    view pdfYoung Patent No. 5,423,679
    Comments
  5. Definiteness
    Datamize LLC. v. Plumtree Software, Inc.
    view pdfDatamize Patent No. 6,014,137
    Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
    view pdfStar Scientific patent No. 6,202,649
    view pdfStar Scientific patent No. 6,425,401
    Comments
Get the latest news from CWRU Law directly to your inbox