Source: http://toyosu.com/ura2001.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:00:11+00:00

Document:
・J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., No.99-1996 (U.S. 2001).
・AMY HARMON, "An Inventor Unveils His Mysterious Personal Transportation Device," New York Times (December 3, 2001).
・GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C., "SEGWAY FACES EARLIER PATENT IN JAPAN." Information Technology Newsletter (January, 2002).
・S.320 "IP and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2001"
"SEC. 4505. PRIOR ART EFFECT OF PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS.
(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or'. ".
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, sections 4502 through 4504 and 4506 through 4507, and the amendments made by such sections, shall be effective as of November 29, 2000, and shall apply only to applications (including international applications designating the United States) filed on or after that date. The amendments made by section 4504 shall additionally apply to any pending application filed before November 29, 2000, if such pending application is published pursuant to a request of the applicant under such procedures as may be established by the Commissioner. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by section 4505 shall be effective as of November 29, 2000 and shall apply to all patents and all applications for patents pending on or filed after November 29, 2000. Patents resulting from an international application filed before November 29, 2000 and applications published pursuant to section 122(b) or Article 21(2) of the treaty defined in section 351(a) resulting from an international application filed before November 29, 2000 shall not be effective as prior art as of the filing date of the international application; however, such patents shall be effective as prior art in accordance with section 102(e) in effect on November 28, 2000.".
・TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS BILL PASSES SENATE AGAIN," IPO Daily News (NOVEMBER 27, 2001).
・"Senate Passes IP Technical Corrections Bill With Two New PTO Positions," 63 Pat. TM&Copyright J. 87 (November 30, 2001).
・Atlas Electric Devices Co. v. Q-Panel Lab Products Corp., No. 99-7654 (N.D. Ill. 11/6/01).
・"'3000' Mark for Lamp May Be Protectable," 63 Pat. TM&Copyright J. 93 (November 30, 2001).
...On April 2, 1999, Atlas filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to register the mark "3000." There are 3000 and X-3000 marks already registered with the PTO, relating to different types of products (beeper, television remote control). The PTO trademark examining attorney approved Atlas' 3000 trademark for publication. However, the registration remains on hold since Q-Panel charges that the approval was given based on false representations.
...The PTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has stated that an alphanumeric term that is used only to designate model, style or grade (serving as a means to distinguish quality, size, or type) is not registrable. In re Dana Corp., 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1748, 1749 (1989). On the other hand, depending on the nature and use of a number, it can serve not only as a model or grade but also as an inherently distinctive source indicator. Id.; Neapco Inc. v. Dana Corp., 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1746, 1748 (1989). Atlas' use of the 3000 mark does not appear to be random in that it designates, at least in part, a specific exposure area. See Ideal Industries, 612 F.2d at 1023. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the designation also serves to indicate the product's source.
・"ROGAN APPROVED BY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE," IPO Daily News (NOVEMBER 30, 2001).
・"IP COLOR," IPO Daily News (NOVEMBER 30, 2001).
..."given the scale of what I do and what I make, it's a luxury that isn't hard to justify."
・DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner, No. H021153 (Cal. App. Ct., 6th App. Dist. 11/1/01).
・"Injunction Barring Web Posting of DeCSS Is Unconstitutional Prior Restraint on Speech," Computer Technology Law Report, Volume 2 Number 22 (November 16, 2001).
・Felten v. Recording Industry Association of America Inc., docket number not yet available, complaint filed (D.N.J. 6/6/01).
・"Researchers Sue RIAA Seeking Court Order Allowing Presentation of Encryption Research," Computer Technology Law Report, Volume 2 Number 12 (June 15, 2001).
・Reuters, "Rambus suffers setback in patent case," CNET.com (November 26, 2001).
...Specifically, the injunction issued by Judge Robert Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will prohibit Los Altos, Calif.-based Rambus from asserting its patents against Infineon for standard SDRAM and faster DDR SDRAM memory chips it makes according to open industry standards, Munich-based Infineon said in a statement.
・Alex Chartove, "The CAFC Study Forum"
・Holmes Group Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems Inc., review granted, No. 01-408 (U.S. 11/8/01).
・"Court Will Review Federal Circuit Claim Of Jurisdiction Based on Defendant's Answer," 63 Pat. TM&Copyright J. Number 1548 (November 16, 2001).
・"International and Foreign Law," AIPLA International and Foreign Law Committee (February 2002).
・Reuters, "Signs of progress seen in China anti-piracy push," FindLaw (Oct 16, 2001).
...The Business Software Alliance, an industry group, contends that 94 percent of the software installed in China last year was counterfeit, worse than the 91 percent rate a year earlier.
...To quash software piracy, China must overcome a culture that treats intellectual property as part of the public domain. "In the communist sense, everybody's property is their own property. This becomes fixed in their mind. They've got to change their thinking," said Keguang's Ho, born in Hong Kong.
・"USPTO ANNOUNCES PATENT FEE CHANGES," USPTO (September 28, 2001).
・"MIT Sues Sony for Digital TV Profit," FindLaw Legal News (Aug. 30, 2001).
・Stephen Shankland, "Rallying cry in open-source war," ZDNet News (August 29, 2001).
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has joined patent and copyright law as a tool to hobble the lively development environment that was behind the success of the Internet and Silicon Valley, Lessig said.
The DMCA has been invoked to stifle Princeton professor Edward Felten's discussion of weaknesses in the copy-protection scheme of the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) and the prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov for his work in breaking the encryption of Adobe's e-book format.
The DMCA is being used "to scare you away from innovating without permission" of entrenched companies, Lessig said.
..."Employees at Smith & Wesson don't worry if guns kill police officers," Lessig said. "Some uses are illegal and some are not. But if you wrote code that could be used for good or bad, you're arrested and sent to jail...There's something screwed up about that."
..."Certain companies are in a better position to innovate and develop than others," Lessig said.
Lessig recommended contributing money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), of which he is a board member. Speaking directly to politicians generally is unproductive, he said, because they're rarely amenable to debate.
・"IP SUITS -- Compiled from news wire reports," IPO Daily News (AUGUST 27, 2001).
・In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
...In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 37 USPQ2d 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1996) addressed the issue of whether an otherwise conventional process could be patented if it were limited to making or using a nonobvious product.　In both cases, the Federal Circuit held that the use of per se rules is improper in applying the test for obviousness under　35 U.S.C. 103.　Rather,　35 U.S.C. 103 requires a highly fact-dependent analysis involving taking the claimed subject matter as a whole and comparing it to the prior art.
・Greg Aharonian, "LAWYER SUES TO GET AT SOME PTO BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS DECISIONS," Internet Patent News Service (Sep. 17, 2001).
The 17 September National Law Journal reports that a Washington DC patent attorney, Harold Wegner, has sued the PTO (using FOIA) to force it to make public its "secret law" - a small set of decisions by the Board of Patent Appeals and interferences.　He argues that because the PTO exercises discretion to release some board decisions, the board cannot now cite a statutory reason to withhold the records that specifically excludes discretionary matters.
・Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Nos. 99-1431, -1504, -1595, -1596, -1601 (Fed.Cir. 2001).
・"Fuji Photo Film Co. Fails to Stop Importation of Refurbished, Patented 'Single-Use' Cameras," IPO Daily News (AUGUST 27, 2001).
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961).
The decisions of this Court require the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such a true reconstruction of the entity as to "in fact make a new article," United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, [148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d. Cir. 1945)], after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent.　In order to call the monopoly, conferred by the patent grant, into play for a second time, it must, indeed, be a second creation of the patented entity, as, for example, in American Cotton Tie Co. v. Simmons, [106 U.S. 89 (1882)].　Mere replacement of individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successively, is no more than the lawful right of the owner to repair his property.
Porter v. Farmers Supply Serv., Inc., 790 F.2d 882, 229 USPQ 814 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (replacement of disks in tomato harvester head is repair).
...In Dana Corp., for example, the truck clutches had lived their intended lives as originally produced, yet the court ruled that the "rebuilding" of the used clutches was more akin to repair than to reconstruction.　The activities of disassembly and rebuilding of the gun mounts of General Electric were similarly extensive, yet were deemed to be repair.
Lummus Indus., Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp., 862 F.2d 267, 8 USPQ2d 1983 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (jury verdict of reconstruction for cutter wheels that were material part of patented invention).
Underlying the repair/reconstruction dichotomy is the principle of exhaustion of the patent right.　The unrestricted sale of a patented article, by or with the authority of the patentee, "exhausts" the patentee's right to control further sale and use of that article by enforcing the patent under which it was first sold.　In United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265, 278 (1942), the Court explained that exhaustion of the patent right depends on "whether or not there has been such a disposition of the article that it may fairly be said that the patentee has received his reward for the use of the article."　See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568, 27 USPQ2d 1136, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("The law is well settled that an authorized sale of a patented product places that product beyond the reach of the patent.")　Thus when a patented device has been lawfully sold in the United States, subsequent purchasers inherit the same immunity under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.　However, the prohibition that the product may not be the vehicle for a "second creation of the patented entity" continues to apply, for such re-creation exceeds the rights that accompanied the initial sale.
United States patent rights are not exhausted by products of foreign provenance.　To invoke the protection of the first sale doctrine, the authorized first sale must have occurred under the United States patent.　See Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. 697, 701-703 (1890) (a lawful foreign purchase does not obviate the need for license from the United States patentee before importation into and sale in the United States).　Our decision applies only to LFFPs for which the United States patent right has been exhausted by first sale in the United States.　Imported LFFPs of solely foreign provenance are not immunized from infringement of United States patents by the nature of their refurbishment.
However, the patentee's unilateral intent, without more, does not bar reuse of the patented article, or convert repair into reconstruction.　See Hewlett-Packard, 123 F.3d at 1453, 43 USPQ2d at 1658 ("a seller's intent, unless embodied in an enforceable contract, does not create a limitation on the right of a purchaser to use, sell, or modify a patented product so long as a reconstruction of the patented combination is avoided").
As discussed in Aro Manufacturing, the replacement of unpatented parts, having a shorter life than is available from the combination as a whole, is characteristic of repair, not reconstruction.　On the totality of the circumstances, the changes made by the remanufacturers all relate to the replacement of the film, the LFFP otherwise remaining as originally sold.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 709, 24 USPQ2d 1173, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the conditions of sale of a "single-use" medical device may contractually restrict further use).
As stated in Hewlett-Packard, "A seller's intent, unless embodied in an enforceable contract, does not create a limitation on the right of a purchaser to use, sell, or modify a patented product as long as a reconstruction of the patented combination is avoided."　123 F.3d at 1453, 43 USPQ2d at 1658.　We do not discern an enforceable restriction on the reuse of these cameras based on the package statements.　These statements are instructions and warnings of risk, not mutual promises or a condition placed upon the sale.　See id. at 1447-48, 1453, 43 USPQ2d at 1652-53, 1657 (refusing implicit limit on modification of cartridges designed to be non-refillable and sold with instructions warning against reuse or refilling); Kendall Co., 85 F.3d at 1576, 38 USPQ2d　at 1922 (holding that instruction meant to ensure product safety and efficiency did not have contractual significance).
・"Roche Says Ends Patent Dispute with Schering-Plough," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (Aug 13, 2001).
・"IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING SMALL ENTITY STATUS," MacRae & Co.
・Dutch Industries Ltd. v The Commissioner of Patents, Barton No-till disk Inc., and Flexi-Coil Ltd.
(B) has transferred or licensed, or is under a contractual or other legal obligation to transfer or license, any right in the invention to an entity that employs 50 or fewer employees or that is a university, and has knowledge of any subsequent transfer or license of, or of any subsisting contractual or other legal obligation to transfer or license, any right in the invention to an entity, other than a university, that employs more than 50 employees.
1. an employer holding a Shop Right.
2. a bank holding a floating charge over the patent rights.
3 a party having an option to acquire rights in the invention.
・Reuters, "U.S. Urges High Court to Reject Microsoft Appeal," FindLaw Legal News (Aug 31, 2001).
・"Justice Wants No Microsoft Review," FindLaw Legal News (Aug 31, 2001).
・"Security Software Company Wins Patent," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (Aug 7, 2001).
・In re Zurko, Nos.96-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
・Associated Press, "The Name Game: 'Niagara' Bottler Agrees to Rename," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 26, 2001).
・"Danish NetTestlaunches Patent Suit in U.S.," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 20, 2001).
・"Medtronic Loses Patent Lawsuit," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 19, 2001).
・Random House v. Rosetta Books, 01-Civ.1728 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
・Hillel Italie (Associated Press), "Federal judge rejects Random House request for injunction against e-publisher," FindLaw Legal News (July 12, 2001).
Should RosettaBooks eventually prevail, e-rights to thousands of old titles conceivably would be available.
・AP, "Simon & Schuster helps kill deal between client publisher and controversial e-publisher," SiliconValley.com (Nov. 7, 2001).
・"Richter Starts Lawsuit Against U.S. Firms," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 13, 2001).
・"Glaxo and Watson Settle Anti-depressant Patent Case, " FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 13, 2001).
・"Elimination of Continued Prosecution Application Practice as to Utility and Plant Patent Applications,"66 Fed. Reg. 35763 (July 9, 2001).
・"PTO Proposal to Eliminate Continued Prosecution Application," 62 PTCJ 223 (July 13, 2001).
・The Globe And Mail, "For A Bunch Of Cyclists, They Had A Pretty Slow Pace: Too Bad They Didn't Lock Up A Patent," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 9, 2001).
・"Singapore Aims for First Patent Search Portal," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 5, 2001).
・"Syngenta Says Wins U.S. Patent Ruling in Bayer Row," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 5, 2001).
・"Vysis to Appeal Patent Infringement Case Ruling," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (July 2, 2001).
・United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 00-5212 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
・"Microsoft Dodges Divestiture Bullet, Faces Hearings on Antitrust Offenses," Electronic Commerce & Law Report, Volume 6, Number 27 (July 4, 2001).
・"Windows License Restrictions Lack Copyright Justification to Avoid Sherman Act Violation," 62 PTCJ 220 (July 13, 2001).
・Associated Press, "Digital Rights Dispute Company Expands Microsoft Patent Suit," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (June 28, 2001).
・"Training Textbooks Released on APIC Homepage," Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center (June 28, in 2001).
・"Fuji Film Files Complaint on Patents," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (June 28, 2001).
・Tony Mauro (American Lawyer Media), "Supreme Court Rules, 7-2, for Free-lancers in 'Tasini,'" law.com (June 26, 2001).
・New York Times Co. v. Tasini, No. 00-201 (U.S. 2001).
・"Japan Firm Plans Y30 Bln Patent-Enforcement Fund," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (June 26, 2001).
・"CAT Sees Patent Dispute With Morphosys Continuing," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (June 26, 2001).
・Jenna Greene (Legal Times), "ITC: The Little Agency That Could -How ITC became prime venue in intellectual property cases,"law.com (June 22, 2001).
"These are very complex cases," says Cecilia Gonzalez, a partner at Howrey Simon Arnold & White. "If you look at the lineup of cases currently pending, most involve cutting-edge technology or markets where the money involved is millions and millions and millions of dollars."
She adds, "These tend to be bet-the-company type cases."
..."They are not for the faint of heart."
"There is no citizenship requirement here," says Levine of the ITC.
"In 1999, if you could spell 'dot-com,' you were rich," says Ralph Mittelberger, a D.C.-based partner at Boston's Fish & Richardson, who notes that just eight ITC cases were filed that calendar year. "But when things slow down, people pay more attention to patents and overseas competition. At that time, people again realized how valuable the ITC is as a tool for protecting intellectual property from unfair competition from abroad."
..."The 337 cases are good for clients but terrible on lawyers. You hear of people ending up 500 hours above their billable goals. I had a lawyer who told me that after doing one ITC case, he would never do another."
当事者：Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc. v. the Pioneer Corp., Scientific-Atlanta Inc., the EchoStar Communications Corp., SCI Systems.
Intel Corp. v. Altima Communications Inc.
・semiconductor chips with minimized chip packet sizes.
・Landon & Stark Associates, "Everyone Wants a Patent, Now You Can B1," Patent Cafe Magazine (6/4/01).
・"Pitney Bowes, E-Stamp Settle Infringement Suit," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (June 28, 2001).
・"Pitney Bowes wins $400 million from HP, sues 8 more companies," Internet Patent News Service (June 23, 2001).
・Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 98-1298,-1347 (Fed.Cir. 6/28/1999).
The preamble statement ... is not merely a statement describing the invention’s intended field of use. Instead, that statement is intimately meshed with the ensuing language in the claim. ...In such a case, it is essential that the court charged with claim construction construe the preamble and the remainder of the claim, as we have done here, as one unified and internally consistent recitation of the claimed invention.
In Vitronics Corp..., we explained that "[e]xtrinsic evidence is that evidence which is external to the patent and file history, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles." Despite the district court’s statements to the contrary, Vitronics does not prohibit courts from examining extrinsic evidence, even when the patent document is itself clear.
...Rather, Vitronics merely warned courts not to rely on extrinsic evidence in claim construction to contradict the meaning of claims discernible from thoughtful examination of the claims, the written description, and the prosecution history -- the intrinsic evidence.
..."In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence. In those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper."
"Apparatus and Method for Generating Images by Producing Light Spots of Different Sizes"
・"Order list," (JUNE 18, 2001).
・FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO CO., Nos.00-1543, cert. granted (2001).
・Jonathan Ringel (American Lawyer Media), "Solicitor General Files Brief Claiming 'Festo' Decision Goes Too Far," law.com (September 4, 2001).
・Nicholas Varchaver, "The Patent King," Fortune (May 14, 2001).
・Robert Shillman, "CEO COGNEX'S LETTER TO THE EDITOR ABOUT LEMELSON," Internet Patent News Service (June 23, 2001).
・"Exam Questions and Answers,"USPTO (June 5, 2001).
・"HP Settles Printer Patent Dispute," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (May 18, 2001).
・Wired, "A Different Dimension:3-D Patent A World Of Trouble?" FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (May 3, 2001).
・Associated Press, "Defenders Of The TRO World - Not Restraining Order vs. Juno Lifted," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (April 16, 2001).
・Stephen G. Kunin, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, "Examination Guideline for 35 U.S.C. 102 (e)(2), as amended by the American Inventiors Protection Act of 1999," O.G. (February 2, 2001).
・TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. v. MKTG DISPLAYS, INC., No 99-571 (U.S.S.C March 20, 2001).
・FindLaw Daily Opinion Summaries for 03/20/01 (March 20, 2001).
・"Patent Payment Punch: Integraph Says Ruling Allows It To Seek Royalties From Intel," Reuters / SiliconValley.com (March 2, 2001).
・Integraph, Corp. v. Intel, Corp., Nos. 1048 (Fed.Cir. 2001).
...In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that Intergraph received "the full and exclusive right, title and interest" to its Clipper patents, Intergraph said in a statement.
"An abuse of discretion may be established by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings."
(4) the injunction's favorable impact on the public interest.
Reebok Int'l Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1555, 31 USPQ2d 1781, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "These factors, taken individually, are not dispositive; rather, the district court must weigh and measure each factor against the other factors and against the form and magnitude of the relief requested."
Our case law and logic both require that a movant cannot be granted a preliminary injunction unless it establishes both of the first two factors, i.e., likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
In this case, we find that the district court committed clear error by misreading the factual content of the prior art references cited by BN and by failing to recognize that BN had raised a substantial question of invalidity of the asserted claims in view of these prior art references.
Validity challenges during preliminary injunction proceedings can be successful, that is, they may raise substantial questions of invalidity, on evidence that would not suffice to support a judgment of invalidity at trial. See, e.g., Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the allegedly anticipatory prior art references sufficiently raised a question of invalidity to deny a preliminary injunction, even though summary judgment of anticipation based on the same references was not supported).
The test for invalidity at trial is by evidence that is clear and convincing. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1396-97 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
To succeed with a summary judgment motion of invalidity, for example, the movant must demonstrate a lack of genuine dispute about material facts and show that the facts not in dispute are clear and convincing in demonstrating invalidity. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. View Eng'g, Inc., 112 F.3d 1163, 1165, 42 USPQ2d 1619, 1621 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In resisting a preliminary injunction, however, one need not make out a case of actual invalidity. Vulnerability is the issue at the preliminary injunction stage, while validity is the issue at trial. The showing of a substantial question as to invalidity thus requires less proof than the clear and convincing showing necessary to establish invalidity itself. That this is so is plain from our cases.
・Amazon.com, Inc. v. barnesandnoble.com, Inc., No. 00-1109, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2163 (Feb. 14, 2001).
・Associated Press, "Take Two-Clicks Back: Injunction Overturned In Amazon Case," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (February 15, 2001).
・"U.S. Tops Annual List of Int'l Patent Applicants," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (February 13, 2001).
...patents are being awarded to ideas so obvious - and so fundamental to the process of putting music, film and other content online - that patent-holders could hold the digital media world hostage.
・"Smucker protects peanut butter-jelly sandwich patent," FINDLAW:Top Legal Headlines (Jan 25, 2001).
・"Utility Examination Guidelines," 66 Fed. Reg. 1092 (January 7, 2001).
(1) Comment: Several comments state that while inventions are patentable, discoveries are not patentable. According to the comments, genes are discoveries rather than inventions. These comments urge the USPTO not to issue patents for genes on the ground that genes are not inventions.
Response: The suggestion is not adopted. An inventor can patent a discovery when the patent application satisfies the statutory requirements. The U.S. Constitution uses the word "discoveries" where it authorizes Congress to promote progress made by inventors. The pertinent part of the Constitution is Article 1, section 8, clause 8, which reads: "The Congress shall have power * * * To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
When Congress enacted the patent statutes, it specifically authorized issuing a patent to a person who "invents or discovers" a new and useful composition of matter, among other things. The pertinent statute is 35 U.S.C. 101, which reads: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Thus, an inventor's discovery of a gene can be the basis for a patent on the genetic composition isolated from its natural state and processed through purifying steps that separate the gene from other molecules naturally associated with it.
If a patent application discloses only nucleic acid molecular structure for a newly discovered gene, and no utility for the claimed isolated gene, the claimed invention is not patentable. But when the inventor also discloses how to use the purified gene isolated from its natural state, the application satisfies the "utility" requirement. That is, where the application discloses a specific, substantial, and credible utility for the claimed isolated and purified gene, the isolated and purified gene composition may be patentable.
・"PTO Finalizes Guidelines For Examiners on Utility Requirement," 61 PTCJ 252 (January 12, 2001).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.