Source: http://toyosu.com/ura2000a.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:58:57+00:00

Document:
・"PTO Proposes Rules to Implement Patent Term Guarantee Amendments.", 59PTCJ 747 (April 7, 2000).
・"Rules Are Proposed To Implement 18 Month Publication of Patent Applications", 59PTCJ 747 (April 7, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Copyright Not Violated by Hypertext Link.", The Recorder/Cal Law (March 31, 2000).
whether hyperlinking is in itself actionable and whether the use of purely factual information is copyright infringement.
・Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, CV99-7654 HLH (BQRx) (C.D.Calif. 2000).
・AP, "Judge OKs Links to Rival Web Sites.", FindLaw Legal News (March 29, 2000).
・Linda Rosencrance, "Ticketmaster accuses Tickets.com of misrepresenting judge's 'deep-linking' ruling.", Computerworld Newspaper (March 31, 2000).
・Ticketmaster v. Microsoft, CV 97-3055 (C.D.Cal. 1997).
・"Claim That Competitor Linked to Web Page Alleged Sufficient Copying to Avoid Dismissal.", 59 PTCJ 751 (April 7, 2000).
Sherman Fridman, "Mirror Sites Included In Cyber Patrol Copyright Ruling.", Newsbytes (March 29, 2000).
・"Business Methods Patent Initiative: An Action Plan" USPTO (March 29, 2000).
・ANNA WILDE MATHEWS, "U.S. Will Give Web Patents More Scrutiny Under New Plan.", THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (March 29, 2000).
・Reuters, "U.S. Patent Office to overhaul Internet area", FindLaw Legal News (March 29, 2000).
Dickinson said new guidelines for patent examiners looking at computer-related inventions would be made available next month. His agency would also double the sample size of computer-business method patents that get a final quality check.
・John Schwartz, "Online Patents to Face Tighter Review.", Washington Post (March 30, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "PTO Ups the Ante Feds planning stricter scrutiny of business method patents on the Net.", The Recorder/Cal Law (March 30, 2000).
...Dickinson noted that the PTO has two technology specialists in the biotechnology arena.
...Dickinson said the initiative was launched to address the flood of new business method patent applications coming into the agency.　Such applications have grown from 1,300 in fiscal year 1998 to 2,600 in fiscal year 1999.　Six hundred business method patents were issued last year.
...Since about 1990, the PTO has been the only federal agency that receives all of its funding from fees...While the money is given back in the following year's budget, Dickinson said money from that year's budget is taken away at the same time.　In the last two years, Congress has taken $200 million from the PTO and this year the figure will increase to $368 million.
・E-Commerce Law Weekly, "Passive Web Site Fails to Provide Jurisdiction for Infringement Claims: Court also declines to pierce corporate veil of parent company to reach acts of wholly owned subsidiary.", (March 29, 2000).
・Nutrition Physiology Corp. v. Enviros Ltd., No. 5:99-CV-0107-C (N.D. Texas. 3/9/00).
・3 D Sys. Inc. v. Aarotech Labs. Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
・Cybersell Inc. v. Cybersell Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 44 USPQ2d 1928 (9th Cir. 1997).
"Interactive" web sites present somewhat different issues. Unlike passive sites such as the defendant's in Bensusan, users can exchange information with the host computer when the site is interactive. Courts that have addressed interactive sites have looked to the "level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site" to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (finding purposeful availment based on Dot Com's interactive web site and contracts with 3000 individuals and seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania allowing them to download the electronic messages that form the basis of the suit); Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328, 1332-33 (E.D. Mo.) (browsers were encouraged to add their address to a mailing list that basically subscribed the user to the service), reconsideration denied, 947 F. Supp. 2448 (1996).
・"Apple's 'OS 9' Is Fair Use of Trademark.", E-Commerce Law Weekly (March 29, 2000).
・Microware Systems Corp. v. Apple Computer Inc., No. 4-99-CV-90496 (S.D. Iowa 3/15/00).
・Reuters, "Qualcomm and Motorola settle patent suits.", FindLaw Legal News (March 28, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Phone Makers to Settle Patent Suits.", The Recorder/Cal Law (March 30, 2000).
・Mealey Publications, "Applicant Must Use PTO Appeals Process, Even Against PTO." (March 27, 2000).
・George A. Teacherson v. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 99-1465 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2000) (unpublished).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Sequel to Cyber Copyright Fight: As feds fine-tune digital copyright law, both sides of key technology issues square off again.", The Recorder/Cal Law (March 27, 2000).
・"Can Feds Keep Up With E-Patents?", New York Law Journal (March 23, 2000).
...Between October 1998 and September 1999, 2,600 applications for computer-related business methods were filed. During that same time period, 583 of these patents were issued.
..We have access to 900 databases, which provide us with better access to prior art than we have ever had in this office. We do need better access to databases in the area of business methods, which is why we held a hearing on this last year...We are also accelerating a program of field trips for examiners to meet with the technologists to learn more about the state of the art in technology. This applies in all technology areas, not just in business methods.
...We are considering whether we should make the rule even tighter and require applicants to search for prior art and tell us if they don't.
..."Business method" is not defined in the statute though, and this will make for some interesting case law.
・Margaret Kane, "Accompany patents group buying: Startup wins U.S. patent for technology that lets online buyers combine their orders and get volume discounts from suppliers.", ZDNet News (March 21, 2000).
・Daniel Greenberg, "Now Showing on DVD: 'Loopholes.'", Washingtonpost (March 24, 2000).
...Apex's Manley said he expects the revised, secret-menu-free players to reach stores from three weeks to 30 days from now. Meanwhile, the hardware continues to fly off Circuit City's shelves; yesterday, the company's Web site urged, "Get yours now while supplies last!"
・Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc., No. 99-150. (U.S. 2000).
・Samara Brothers Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 49 USPQ2d 1260 (2d Cir. 10/4/1999).
・Tony Mauro, "Public Universities, Wal-Mart Big Winners at High Court: In separate opinions, justices back principle that state schools develop free speech and side with makers of knockoff products.", American Lawyer Media (March 23, 2000).
...Consumers are aware of the reality that, almost invariably, even the most unusual of product designs -- such as a cocktail shaker shaped like a penguin -- is intended not to identify the source but to render the product itself more useful or more appealing.
・"Product Design is Protectible as Trade Dress Only on Showing of Secondary Meaning.", IP Law Weekly (March 23, 2000).
・AP, "Wal-Mart Wins Kids' Clothing Suit.", FindLaw Legal News (March 22, 2000).
・Qualitex v. Jacobson Products, 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995).
・P.J. HUFFSTUTTER, "New Patent Rules Open High-Tech Battlefield: Courts: Changes allowing ownership not only of products but business models and processes have led to explosion of lawsuits.", LAtimes (March 20, 2000).
...They worry about the expense--both in time and money--of having to wade through a minefield of patent claims.
"I'm shocked that the government would issue a patent for something I consider only evolutionary, not revolutionary," Sun said.
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 103 F.3d 1571, 41 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
・Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., No. 99-1240 (Fed. Cir. 2/14/2000).
対象特許：米国特許第5,657,873号"Food Package Having a Compartmentalized Rigid Base Tray"
(c)　a protecting back panel adhered immovably to said bottom walls of at least two of said compartments of said tray, said back panel being planar and adapted to receive and display information.
・"Equivalents Infringement Is Not Barred By Pre-Existing Technology in Accused Device.", 59 PTCJ 572 (February 18, 2000).
・Reuters(PALO ALTO, Calif.), "Hewlett, Xerox Settle Patent Lawsuits.", New York Times (March 20, 2000).
licensing agreement authorizing licensee to use photographs as guides, models, and examples for "illustrations," does not cover computer-scanned images of photos that retain qualities of lifelike appearance and objective accuracy that are essentially photographic.
Mendler v. Winterland Production, Ltd.
Internet are not exempt from copyright liability.
65 FR 14227, March 16, 2000.
COMMENTS SOUGHT ON PATENT TREATY PROPOSAL The Patent and Trademark Office is seeking comments concerning a patent law treaty proposal. 65 FR 12515, March 9, 2000.
CONFERENCE ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES ANNOUNCED The Patent and Trademark Office will hold a conference concerning state sovereign immunity in intellectual property cases. 65 FR 11987, March 7, 2000.
・Paul Elias, "Artist to Get Damages For Scanned Photograph.", The Recorder/Cal Law (March 16, 2000).
・Mendler v. Winterland Productions Ltd., 00 C.D.O.S. 2007 (9th Cir. 1991).
・"U.S., Britain urge free access to human genome data: DNA mapping holds promise of disease cures",　(March 14, 2000).
"To realize full promise of the research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere,"
"We must ensure that the profits of human genome research are measured not in dollars but in the betterment of human life,"
"We commend other scientists around the world to adopt this policy,"
・Justin Gillis, "Clinton, Blair Urge Open Access to Gene Data.", Washington Post (March 15, 2000).
・Identify the more than 100,000 genes in human DNA.
・Determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA.
・Store this information in databases.
・Develop tools for data analysis.
・Address the ethical, legal, and social issues that may arise from the project.
The National Institutes of Health's National Human Genome Research Institute and the Department of Energy's Human Genome Program together make up the U.S. Human Genome Project. The U.K.'s Wellcome Trust, a private philanthropy, also contributes to the global initiative.
・"CLINTON BIOTECH STATEMENT SPARKS 200 POINT DROP IN NASDAQ.", IPO Daily News (MARCH 15, 2000).
・Bob Woods, "Biotech Stocks Rebound After Analysts Address Clinton Speech.", Washtech.com (March 15, 2000).
Celera Genomics Corp... released a statement late yesterday commending the Clinton/Blair speech, and said that the only restriction that Celera has ever requested is that other database providers would be prohibited from providing or selling Celera's data as their own.
・"Call to publish all gene data praised", BBC News Sci/Tech (15 March, 2000).
・"US PATENT POLICY UNAFFECTED BY US/UK STATEMENT ON HUMAN GENE SEQUENCE DATA.", USPTO PRESS RELEASE #00-17 (March 16, 2000).
・"Clinton, Blair Urge Access To Data From Human Genome Project", 59 PTCJ 656 (March 17, 2000).
・Tom Abate, "Gene-Patent Opponents Not Licked Yet Debate about human genome far from over.", San Francisco Chronicle (March 20, 2000).
・The Associated Press, "Part of Intergraph's Claim Dismissed.", FindLaw Legal News (March 3, 2000).
・Intergraph Corp. v Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 52 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
・Chris DeVoney, David Raikow, "One small victory for spammers ...", ZD Net News Bursts (March 15, 2000).
・Peter Lewis, "Anti-spam e-mail suit tossed out" Seattle Times (March 14, 2000).
The judge held that the statute is "unduly restrictive and burdensome" and places a burden on businesses that outweighs its benefits to consumers. The case will not stand as a binding precedent unless it is upheld on appeal. The state has until April 10 to decide whether to appeal.
・Associated Press, "Bezos Urges Changes in Patent Law.", FindLaw Legal News (March 10, 2000).
・Matt Richtel, "NY Times: Chairman of Amazon Urges Reduction of Patent Terms", Linux Today (Mar 11, 2000).
・Jeff Bezos, "AN OPEN LETTER FROM JEFF BEZOS ON THE SUBJECT OF PATENTS", Amazon.com, Inc.
・Victoria Slind-Flor, "Bar Reacts To Bezos Patent Reform Plan: Adopting his changes would upset good system, they say.", The National Law Journal (March 20, 2000).
・Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, No. 97-16686, D.C. No. CV-97-00582 (9th Cir. 2000).
・Declan McCullagh, "Landmark Ruling on Encryption.", HotWired news (May 6, 1999).
37 CFR 1.69	Foreign language oaths and declarations.
(b) Unless the text of any oath or declaration in a language other than English is a form provided or approved by the Patent and Trademark Office, it must be accompanied by an English translation together with a statement that the translation is accurate, except that in the case of an oath or declaration filed under Section　1.63, the translation may be filed in the Office no later than two months from the date applicant is notified to file the translation.
(G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting his or her claims and may not be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under　37 CFR 1.131. In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 177 USPQ 170 (CCPA 1973); In re Garfinkel, 437 F.2d 1000, 168 USPQ 659 (CCPA 1971); In re Blout, 333 F.2d 928, 142 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1964); In re Lopresti, 333 F.2d 932, 142 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1964).
18. Finally, if information was specifically considered and discarded as not material, this fact might be recorded in an attorney's file or applicant's file, including the reason for discarding it. If judgment might have been bad or something might have been overlooked inadvertently, a note made at the time of evaluation might be an invaluable aid in explaining that the mistake was honest and excusable. Though such records are not required, they could be helpful in recalling and explaining actions in the event of a question of "fraud" or "inequitable conduct" raised at a later time.
・"Semiconductor Technology Patent Unenforceable: Partial translation of foreign language reference does not fulfill patentee's duty of candor.", IP Law Weekly (March 17, 2000).
・Lemelson v Wang Lab. Inc., 874 F.Supp 430, 32 USPQ2d 1216 (D.Mass. 1994).
・Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co. Inc., 35 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir.).
・A. Stucki Co. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 22 USPQ2d 1581 (Fed. Cir.).
...The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of Buckeye on Count II, for alleged violation of RICO. A four-year statute of limitations applies to RICO claims, Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assoc., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987), though the circuit courts of appeal are divided as to when a civil RICO cause of action accrues. The district court in this case applied the majority rule as to accrual; namely, that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the basis for its civil RICO claim. See, e.g., Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096, 1102-05 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 (1989). The district court held that, even assuming patent infringement can form the basis of a RICO violation, any RICO claim Stucki had against Buckeye would clearly have accrued prior to July 1984 (four years from the date of filing of Stucki's amended complaint presenting the RICO claim). Thus, the court held, Stucki's RICO claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
Stucki now argues that its RICO cause of action could not have accrued before October 1984, when the Supreme Court denied RDI's petition for a writ of certiorari to this court in our Railroad Dynamics decision, thus ending with finality the dispute over the validity of the '292 patent. Stucki did not raise this argument below, and hence we will not consider it. Alternatively, Stucki contends that its RICO claim could not have accrued until RDI's bankruptcy proceeding was concluded, in January 1990. Stucki's theory appears to be that Buckeye engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by participation in a "bankruptcy plot" to avoid payment of damages, and that Stucki could not be certain of the amount of its uncollected loss until the distribution of RDI's assets was completed. The district court rejected this line of argument, and we see no reason to differ. Even applying the most expansive "last predicate act" definition of accrual advocated by Stucki, see Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 863 F.2d 1125, 1130 (3d Cir. 1988), Stucki has failed to explain why RDI's January 1990 liquidation, rather than its March 1984 bankruptcy filing, should constitute the "last predicate act which is part of the same pattern of racketeering activity." Id. As Buckeye correctly notes, Stucki's position only improved after RDI's bankruptcy filing, since Stucki obtained a partial recovery through the eventual distribution of RDI's assets. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Buckeye on Count II.
・Reuters, "Apple secures iMac injunctions against rivals.", Findlaw Legal News (March 8, 2000).
・"Amazon.com Says It Received Patent for Its Affiliates Program.", Wall Street Journal (February 28, 2000).
・"PTO OFFERS TRAINING MATERIALS FOR INTERIM WRITTEN DESCRIPTION AND UTILITY GUIDELINES.", USPTO (March 1, 2000).
"REVISED INTERIM UTILITY GUIDELINES TRAINING MATERIALS"
"REVISED INTERIM WRITTEN DESCRIPTION GUIDELINES TRAINING MATERIALS"
・AP, "Squabbles Over Patents Increase.", FindLaw Legal News (Feb. 22, 2000).
In its evaluation of the evidence on which this conclusion was based, the district court had a powerful advantage over the patent examiner and the Board, an advantage characteristic of section 145 appeals, in that the court heard and saw witnesses, testifying under examination and cross-examination, and had the benefit of extensive discussion and argument.
We hold that the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial. Thus, although the live testimony before the district court might be the same or similar to testimony before the Board in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts, a district court should still make de novo factual findings, while treating the record before the Board when offered by a party "as if [it was] originally taken and produced" in the district court. 35 U.S.C. §146. Accordingly, because Winner submitted live testimony on all matters before the Board, the entire district court proceeding should have been a trial de novo, based both on the Board record and the district court evidence.
・Jay S. Walker, "The Internet Business: Is Government a Catalyst or Barrier?", (February 2, 2000).
・Ritchenya A. Shepherd, "Getting Around IP Immunity: Congress looks at ban on suing states under the Lanham Act.", The National Law Journal (February 18, 2000).
・"IPO SUPPORTED XEROX IN ANTITRUST SUIT.", IPO's Daily News (FEBRUARY 18, 2000).
・CSU, L.L.C. v. Xerox Corp., No. 99-1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
・"Refusal to Sell Patented Products Does Not Violate Sherman Antitrust Act", IP Law Weekly (February 24, 2000).
・"Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents is Now Available to PTO Customers." USPTO (Feb. 3, 2000).
・"Copyright Act Does Not Preempt State Law Misappropriation Action: Legislative history of Copyright Act makes it clear that Congress knew of state law rights of privacy and publicity.", IP Law Weekly (February 16, 2000).
・Brown v. Ames, No. 98-20736 (5th Cir. 2/7/00).
・Dugie Standeford, "Congress, PTO to Debate State Immunity from IP Suits.", IP Law Weekly (February 10, 2000).
・S.1835: Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 (Introduced in the Senate).
・ PETER G. GOSSELIN, "Clinton Urges Public Access to Genetic Code.", LA Times (February 11, 2000).
"Most scientists and researchers believe the basic information ought to be as broadly shared as possible . . .,". . . "Then, when people develop something that has specific use or commercial benefit . . ., that ought to be patentable."
"I think the patenting should be for specific discoveries and developments that have a clear and definable benefit . . ."
・"Intermediate Copying of BIOS Was Fair Use Reverse Engineering.", 59 PTCJ 570 (February 18, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Court Zaps Copyright Case Over Sony Software.", The Recorder/Cal Law (February 11, 2000).
・Sony v. Connectix, No. 99-15852 (9th Cir. 2000).
Copyrighted software ordinarily contains both copyrighted and unprotected or functional elements. Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a product that must be compatible with a copyrighted product frequently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46 (1994).
Method (2), observation of a program, can take several forms. The functional elements of some software programs, for example word processing programs, spreadsheets, and video game displays may be discernible by observation of the computer screen. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1520. Of course, the reverse engineer in such a situation is not observing the object code itself,2 only the external visual expression of this code's operation on the computer. Here, the software program is copied each time the engineer boots up the computer, and the computer copies the program into RAM. Other forms of observation are more intrusive. Operations systems, system interface procedures, and other programs like the Sony BIOS are not visible to the user when they are operating. See id. One method of "observing" the operation of these programs is to run the program in an emulated environment. In the case of the Sony BIOS, this meant operating the BIOS on a computer with software that simulated the operation of the PlayStation hardware; operation of the program, in conjunction with another program known as a "debugger," permitted the engineers to observe the signals sent between the BIOS and other programs on the computer. This latter method required copying the Sony BIOS from a chip in the PlayStation onto the computer. The Sony BIOS was copied again each time the engineers booted up their computer and the computer copied the program into RAM. All of this copying was intermediate; that is, none of the Sony copyrighted material was copied into, or appeared in, Connectix's final product, the Virtual Game Station.
Methods (3) and (4) constitute "disassembly" of object code into source code.3 In each case, engineers use a program known as a "dissassembler" to translate the ones and zeros of binary machine-readable object code into the words and mathematical symbols of source code. This translated source code is similar to the source code used originally to create the object code4 but lacks the annotations drafted by the authors of the program that help explain the functioning of the source code. In a static examination of the computer instructions, method (3), the engineer disassembles the object code of all or part of the program. The program must generally be copied one or more times to perform disassembly. In a dynamic examination of the computer instructions, method (4), the engineer uses the disassembler program to disassemble parts of the program, one instruction at a time, while the program is running. This method also requires copying the program and, depending on the number of times this operation is performed, may require additional copying of the program into RAM every time the computer is booted up.
・Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520, 24 USPQ2d 1561, 1569 (9th Cir. 1993)(amended opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in the copyrighted work.).
...The legislative history of the SCPA reveals, however, that Congress passed a separate statute to protect semiconductor chip products because it believed that semiconductor chips were intrinsically utilitarian articles that were not protected under the Copyright Act. H.R. Rep. No. 781, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 8-10, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5750, 5757-59. Accordingly, rather than amend the Copyright Act to extend traditional copyright protection to chips, it enacted "a sui generis form of protection, apart from and independent of the copyright laws." Id . at 10 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5759. Because Congress did not believe that semiconductor chips were eligible for copyright protection in the first instance, the fact that it included an exception for reverse engineering of mask work in the SCPA says nothing about its intent with respect to the lawfulness of disassembly of computer programs under the Copyright Act. Nor is the fact that Congress did not contemporaneously amend the Copyright Act to permit disassembly significant, since it was focusing on the protection to be afforded to semiconductor chips. Here we are dealing not with an alleged violation of the SCPA, but with the copying of a computer program, which is governed by the Copyright Act. Moreover, Congress expressly stated that it did not intend to "limit, enlarge or otherwise affect the scope, duration, ownership or subsistence of copyright protection . . . in computer programs, data bases, or any other copyrightable works embodied in semiconductor chip products." Id . at 28, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5777. Accordingly, Sega's second statutory argument also fails. We proceed to consider Accolade's fair use defense.
・Brooktree Corp. v Advanced Micro Devices Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
AMD's position at trial, and on appeal, was that its core cell was the product of reverse engineering of the Brooktree chip, and therefore does not constitute infringement under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. Reverse engineering is a statutory defense, included in the Act upon extensive congressional attention to the workings of the semiconductor chip industry.
Rep. EDWARDS: . . . Is the chief reservation here the idea that reverse engineering, which all the witnesses agree is appropriate, might be confused with pirating and that any kind of reverse engineering might be interpreted under this law as pirating?
Mr. MacPHERSON (of Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp.): I think that's one of the very strong concerns that we have, yes. There is a very gray area here in the very nature of reverse engineering, which would leave an individual engaged in that practice uncertain what his ultimate rights would be should he use that particular result in another product.
Copyright Protection for Imprinted Design Patterns on Semiconductor Chips: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Comm. on the Judiciary , 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 66 (1979).
"Whenever there is a true case of reverse engineering, the second firm will have prepared a great deal of paper -- logic and circuit diagrams, trial layouts, computer simulations of the chip, and the like; it will also have invested thousands of hours of work. All of these can be documented by reference to the firm's ordinary business records. A pirate has no such papers, for the pirate does none of this work. Therefore, whether there has been a true reverse engineering job or just a job of copying can be shown by looking at the defendant's records. The paper trail of a chip tells a discerning observer whether the chip is a copy or embodies the effort of reverse engineering."
Senate Report at 22 (quoting statement of Leslie L. Valdasz, Senior Vice President, Intel Corporation). The Committee reports and the statements of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act's supporters show the belief that evidence of the presence or absence of such a paper trail would significantly reduce the gray area between legitimate and illegitimate behavior. See Mathias - Leahy Memorandum at S12,917; House Report at 21.
Senators Mathias and Leahy explained that Section 906(a) includes a provision to clarify the intent of both chambers that competitors are permitted not only to study the protected mask works, but also to use the results of that study to design, distribute and import semiconductor chip products embodying their own original mask works.
* * * The end product of the reverse engineering process is not an infringement, and itself qualifies for protection under the Act, if it is an original mask work as contrasted with a substantial copy. If the resulting semiconductor chip product is not substantially identical to the original, and its design involved significant toil and investment, so that it is not mere plagiarism, it does not infringe the original chip, even if the layout of the two chips is, in substantial part, similar.
Reverse engineering is permitted and is authorized by the Chip Protection Act. It is not infringement of an owner's exclusive right and protected mask work for another person, through reverse-engineering, to photograph and to study the mask work for the purpose of analyzing its circuity -- correction -- the circuitry, logic flow and organization of the components used in the mask work and to incorporate such analysis into an original mask work.
The end product of the reverse-engineering process may be an original mask work, and therefore not an infringing mask work, if the resulting semiconductor chip product is not substantially identical to the protected mask work and its design involved significant toil and investment so that it is not mere plagiarism.
You should place great weight on the existence of reverse paperwork trail in determining whether the defendant's mask work is an original mask work from reverse-engineering.
A.M.D. mask work constitutes an original mask work if A.M.D.'s mask work incorporates its own new design elements which offered improvements over or an alternative to Brooktree's mask work.
These instructions focus the jury on whether AMD produced an original mask work, as the statute requires. The instructions were not challenged by AMD on its motion for new trial or on appeal, and were adapted from AMD's proposed instructions. Brooktree calls the instructions "too lenient". Whether or not too lenient, they were not objected to by AMD at trial, and are not now criticized by AMD as incorrect. They are the law applied in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488, 1500 n.12 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 (1989) (failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review).
・Atari Games Corp. v Nintendo of Am. Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
...Section 107 also requires examination of the nature of the work when determining if a reproduction is a fair use. 17 U.S.C. Section 107(2). When the nature of a work requires intermediate copying to understand the ideas and processes in a copyrighted work, that nature supports a fair use for intermediate copying. Thus, reverse engineering object code to discern the unprotectable ideas in a computer program is a fair use. See Feist, 111 S. Ct. at 1290, (" [C]opyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying from a prior author's work those constituent elements that are not original -- for example . . . facts, or materials in the public domain -- as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate the author's original contributions."); cf. New Kids, slip op. at 4 n.6; contra Sega Enter. v. Accolade, Inc. , No. C-91-3871, slip op. at 5 [23 USPQ2d 1440 ] (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 1992).
Fair use to discern a work's ideas, however, does not justify extensive efforts to profit from replicating protected expression. Subparagraphs 1 and 4 of section 107 clarify that the fair use in intermediate copying does not extend to commercial exploitation of protected expression. Sony Corp. , 464 U.S. at 451. The fair use reproductions of a computer program must not exceed what is necessary to understand the unprotected elements of the work. This limited exception is not an invitation to misappropriate protectable expression. Any reproduction of protectable expression must be strictly necessary to ascertain the bounds of protected information within the work.
In this case, the source code obtained from the Copyright Office facilitated Atari's intermediate copying of the 10NES program. To invoke the fair use exception, an individual must possess an authorized copy of a literary work. see Harper & Row , 471 U.S. at 562-63 (Knowing exploitation of purloined manuscript not compatible with "good faith" and "fair dealings" underpinnings of fair use doctrine.). Because Atari was not in authorized possession of the Copyright Office copy of 10NES, any copying or derivative copying of 10NES source code from the Copyright Office does not qualify as a fair use.
Reverse engineering, untainted by the purloined copy of the 10NES program and necessary to understand 10NES, is a fair use. An individual cannot even observe, let alone understand, the object code on Nintendo's chip without reverse engineering. Atari retrieved this object code from NES security chips in its efforts to reverse engineer the 10NES program. Atari chemically removed layers from Nintendo's chips to reveal the 10NES object code. Through microscopic examination of the "peeled" chip, Atari engineers transcribed the 10NES object code into a handwritten list of ones and zeros. While these ones and zeros represent the configuration of machine readable software, the ones and zeros convey little, if any, information to the normal unaided observer. Atari then keyed this handwritten copy into a computer. The computer then "disassembled" 6 the object code or otherwise aided the observer in understanding the program's method or functioning. This "reverse engineering" process, to the extent untainted by the 10NES copy purloined from the Copyright Office, qualified as a fair use.
The district court assumed that reverse engineering (intermediate copying) was copyright infringement. Atari Games v. Nintendo of Am. , Nos. 88-4805, 89-0027, 89-0824, slip op. at 11-13 [ 18 USPQ2d 1935 ] (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1991). This court disagrees. Atari did not violate Nintendo's copyright by deprocessing computer chips in Atari's rightful possession. Atari could lawfully deprocess Nintendo's 10NES chips to learn their unprotected ideas and processes. This fair use did not give Atari more than the right to understand the 10NES program and to distinguish the protected from the unprotected elements of the 10NES program. Any copying beyond that necessary to understand the 10NES program was infringement. Atari could not use reverse engineering as an excuse to exploit commercially or otherwise misappropriate protected expression.
・"Connectix Announces Decisive Victory in Sony Lawsuit.", Connectix Corporation, Press Release (February 10, 2000).
・"2001 USPTO FEE WITHHOLDING REVEALED.", IPO DAILY NEWS (FEBRUARY 8, 2000).
・Niki Kapsambelis, "Judge Issues Injunction Against iCrave.", The Legal Intelligencer (February 10, 2000).
・Reuters, "Lawmakers wary of giving licenses for TV over Web.", Silicon Valley News(February 16, 2000).
・AP, "Lawmakers address new challenges posed by online TV broadcasts.", FindLaw Legal News (Feb. 17, 2000).
・Gregory Aharonian, "PATNEWS: Y2K patent (cess)pool being formed.", Internet Patent News Service (February 10, 2000).
・Reuters, "AOL sued over 5.0 install: Fritz Schneider is not just an America Online user -- he's a lawyer. And now he's suing AOL over how it treats competing ISPs.", ZDNet News (February 2, 2000).
・米国特許第5,790,532号"Voice over video communication system"
・PETER G. GOSSELIN, PAUL JACOBS, "Patent Office Now at Heart of Gene Debate" LA Times (Feb. 7, 2000).
・"Shares Of Human Genome Sciences Soar On Patent For AIDS Virus Gene.", DOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS (February 16, 2000).
...the gene, called CCR5, is a receptor gene that facilitates a protein that functions as a receptor or "docking site" for HIV.
According to Rockville, Md.-based Human Genome (HGSI), scientists have found that people who lack a functional CCR5 receptor gene tend to resist HIV infection. The discovery, made some years ago, suggests drugs that interfere with the receptor might help treat AIDS, the company said.
・Tom Davey, "There's gold in them thar genes.", Redherring.com (February 22, 2000).
・"Inventor Is Subject To Implied Contract to Assign Rights: Corporate officer or director has fiduciaryduty to assign patent rights to corporation.", IP Law Weekly (February 7, 2000).
・Scott System Inc. v. Scott, No. 98CA2402 (Colo. Ct. App. 1/20/00).
・Mark Hamblett, "First Ruling on Anti-cybersquatting Law.", New York Law Journal (February 3, 2000).
・Farm v. Sportsman's Market Inc., 98-7452 (2d Cir. 2000).
・"Video Game Maker In Contempt for Using Image of 'Snuggle Bear': But audience is so small that harm to plaintiff is outweighed by harm to defendant.", IP Law Weekly (February 3, 2000).
・Conopco Inc. v. 3DO Co., No. 99CV10893 (S.D.N.Y. 12/7/99).
・"American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA)" USPTO (Feb. 1, 2000).
・Victoria Slind-Flor, "In-House IP Lawyers May Lose Key Job: Some say patent lawyers lack biz savvy to manage IP assets.", The National Law Journal (February 1, 2000).
・Dugie Standeford, Internet Raises Sticky Questions About Ownership of IP in Academia.", IP Law Weekly (January 28, 2000).
・Courtney Macavinta, "Music retailers charge Sony with unfair competition.", CNET News.com (January 31, 2000).
・Victoria Slind-Flor, "Plants Protected By Patents Federal Circuit's ruling clarifies confusion in the law.", The National Law Journal (January 31, 2000).
・"Court Rules That Seed-Grown Plants are Protected Under Regular Patent Statute.", IPO Daily News (JANUARY 20, 2000).
・"Sexually Reproducing Plants Are Patentable Subject Matter Under §101", 59 PTCJ 481 (January 21, 2000).
・Pioneer Hi- Bred International, Inc. v. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., No. 99-1035 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
・"Seagate Paying U.K.'s Rodime $45 Million To Settle Patent Case", Dow Jones Business News (January 27, 2000).
・Seagate Technology Inc. v. Rodime PLC, 174 F.3d 1294, 50 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1999), cert. denied., No. 99-573 (2000 U.S.).
・"Means Element Avoids § 112 ¶6 By Including 'Sufficient' Structure.", 57 PTCJ No. 1422 (April 22, 1999).
・Reuters, "Disney loses round in Internet logo wrangle" FindLaw Legal News (January 28, 2000).
・Patricia Jacobus, "Judge bars Disney from using Go.com logo", CNET News.com (January 28, 2000).
・"Injunction for GoTo.com Reinstated Against Disney's 'Go.com' Logo.", E-Commerce Law Weekly (February 3, 2000).
・GoTo.com. Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., No.99-56691 (9th Cir. stay lifted 1/27/00), No. CV-99-01674-TJH (C.D. Calif.).
・"Closing of the Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday January 25, 2000, and Wednesday, January 26, 2000" USPTO (January 27, 2000).
・Randy Lilleston, "Clinton calls for major tax cut, new gun controls: In State of the Union address, president unveils long list of proposals.", CNN (January 28, 2000).
・John F. Harris, "Analysis: A Return to Activist Agenda.", Washington Post (January 28, 2000).
・Tatiana Boncompagni, "Double Trouble" Legal Times (January 27, 2000).
・Reuters, "L90 to debut on Wall Street amid rivalry, lawsuit" FindLaw Legal News (Jan. 26, 2000).
・Carol Emert, "Internet Marketer DoubleClick in Hot Water Watchdog group is preparing to file complaint with FTC.", San Francisco Chronicle (January 27, 2000).
・Patricia Jacobus, "eToys settles Net name dispute with etoy.", CNET News.com (January 25, 2000).
・U.S. Patent No. 5,327,529 "flexible user interface for mobile communications devices"
・Ken Yamada, "Selling corporate secrets -- legally.", Redherring.com (January 24, 2000).
・"Test for 'Inherent Distinctiveness' of Trade Dress Debated in Supreme Court.", IP Law Weekly (January 24, 2000).
・"Arguments Heard in Trade Dress Case: On Inherently Distinctive Product Designs", 59 PTCJ 480 (January 21, 2000).
・"Patent Lawyer Lambasted For 'Studied Ignorance' of On-Sale Bar Patent attorneys' knowledge of disclosure requirements is imputed to their clients.", IP Law Weekly (January 24, 2000).
・Brasseler U.S.A. I LP v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. 497-184 (S.D. Ga. 12/30/99).
・Brasseler v. Stryker Sales Corp., 182 F.3d 888, 51 USPQ2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 07/09/1999).
...We decline Brasseler's invitation to establish a new exception based on the fact (alleged) that it and DS Manufacturing were joint developers and as such a sale between the two of them should not be considered a Section 102(b) sale. It is true that Brasseler and DS Manufacturing both employed one or more of the named inventors. However, we have "never recognized a 'joint development' exception to the 'on sale' bar." Buildex Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1465, 7 USPQ2d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Brasseler invites us to follow the holding in Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 671, 689, 205 USPQ 612, 629 (E.D. Mich. 1979). In Ex-Cell-O, the district court opined that because the invention was jointly developed by the buyer and seller, each employing one of the named inventors, the sale between them was not a Section 102(b) sale. However, the district court failed to provide any reasoning for this conclusion. The court did note that the accused infringer never disputed the patentee's contention that if the invention was jointly developed, the on-sale bar does not apply. See id. at 689 n. 14, 205 USPQ at 629 n. 14. In any event, we are not bound by the district court decision in Ex-Cell-O. Brasseler has failed to convince us that we should adopt the holding in that case.
Brasseler also cites M & R Marking Sys., Inc. v. Top Stamp, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 466, 468-70 (D.N.J. 1996), in which the district court declined to apply the on-sale bar to a sale from a manufacturer to a sales corporation that employed the sole named inventor and had asked the manufacturer to make the patented product pursuant to the patented design. Again, we have no obligation to follow the district court's reasoning. Furthermore, the case before us is distinguished in at least one significant respect. In M & R Marking, there was only one inventor and that inventor was employed by the buyer. Here, in contrast, DS Manufacturing (the seller) was owned by one of the inventors and it employed a second inventor. By way of the sale to Brasseler, these inventors commercially exploited the invention prior to the critical date.
This is not a case in which an individual inventor takes a design to a fabricator and pays the fabricator for its services in fabricating a few sample products. Here DS Manufacturing made a large number of the agreed-upon product for general marketing by Brasseler. The transaction was invoiced as a sale of product, and the parties understood the transaction to be such.
Nor are we persuaded to a different conclusion by the allegation that Brasseler (the buyer) was the 'equitable owner' of the invention at the time of the sale. For one, Brasseler's evidence in this regard is unconvincing, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Brasseler, as we must in reviewing the summary judgment. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1307, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, even accepting the allegation as true, the fact that Brasseler had ownership rights in the invention when an embodiment thereof was produced and sold to Brasseler in large quantity for resale by Brasseler does not provide a ground, on these facts, for reaching a different result.
Additionally, the fact that, as alleged, Brasseler (the buyer) may have initiated development of the invention is also not persuasive. See Buildex, 849 F.2d at 1465, 7 USPQ2d at 1328 ("Traulsen [the buyer] may have provided the impetus for making the invention, but that does not make the transaction any less an offer for sale."). We are also not persuaded by Brasseler's assertion (made at oral argument) that the sale at issue here was not in the public and thus was not a Section 102(b) sale. As we noted in Buildex, "[t]he 'public' [for purposes of Section 102(b)] is not limited to ultimate users of the product . . . ." 849 F.2d at 1465, 7 USPQ2d at 1329. Similarly, in Caveney we rejected the argument that sales activity kept secret from the trade does not trigger the on-sale bar. 761 F.2d at 675-76, 226 USPQ at 3-4.
Lastly, we are not persuaded by the fact that Brasseler may have taken certain additional processing steps ( i.e. , marking, packaging, and sterilization) prior to selling the saw blades to hospitals. This alleged fact is immaterial because the saw blades sold by DS Manufacturing to Brasseler undisputedly included all of the limitations of the patent claims; the additional steps allegedly performed by Brasseler are not recited in the claims. Thus the additional steps undertaken for marketing of the product do not change the basic transaction--a sale of completed product in quantity, constituting a commercial sale of a product ready for patenting, and for marketing by Brasseler.
In sum, it is undisputed that the invention was "ready for patenting" at the time of the sale. Pfaff, 119 S. Ct. at 312. Furthermore, Brasseler has failed to convince us that the sale was not "commercial" or is otherwise exempt from Section 102(b). Id. The cases on which Brasseler's argument rests are premised on the now-discarded "totality of the circumstances" rule, and although the facts here are in some respects distinguishable from our prior cases in which we have held there to be on-sale bars, the differences do not persuade us to exempt the sale here from the reach of Section 102(b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of invalidity.
・"'Joint Development' by Buyer and Seller Does Not Preclude On-Sale Bar to Validity.", 58 PTCJ 360 (July 22, 1999).
・Pfaff v. Wells Elecs. Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998).
・SARA ROBINSON, "3 Copyright Lawsuits Test Limits of New Digital Media.", New York Times (January 24, 2000).
・Michael Learmonth, "Industry Group Sues MP3.com: MP3.com vows to fight the music industry's opposition." The Standard (January 21, 2000).
...To accomplish this feat, MP3.com bought 40,000 CDs, ripped each CD's tracks into MP3 format and created a database. The copies transferred into customers' accounts actually come from the database on MP3.com's servers, not from recordings individually owned by consumers.
This is what's problematic to the RIAA and copyright advocates. The Copyright Act of 1971 prohibits anyone but the copyright owner from making a copy of a recording. An exception to that law was created by Congress by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 which prevented consumers from being sued by record companies for making copies of recordings for their own use.
..."Though I am not a lawyer, I would think it would be difficult to patent the sale of music files on the Internet. You might be able to patent a METHOD of selling music downloads, but patenting an MP3 download for profit would seem like patenting pre-existing chunks of the Internet. Both the practice of online sales and file downloading have been around for some time, and I don't know why combining the two practices is something that qualifies as being worthy of a patent..."
・Reuters, "MP3 files suit against Recording Industry body.", FindLaw Legal News (Feb. 8, 2000).
・"Title 35: Amendments Made by Pub.L. No. 106-113: Working Document Showing Amendments and Deletions (Not Official Codification)" USPTO (Jan. 21, 2000).
・AP, "Canadian Internet Firm Sued.", FindLaw Legal News (Jan. 21, 2000).
・Dugie Standeford, "U.S. Studios, TV Stations Charge iCraveTV with 'Brazen' Cyberpiracy: Plaintiffs claim it retransmitted TV broadcasts over the Internet.", IP Law Weekly (January 28, 2000).
・(Reuters), "iCraveTV Web site suspends broadcast of TV shows.", FindLaw Legal News (Jan. 30, 2000).
・Dugie Standeford, "U.S. Film Studios, TV Stations Win TRO Against iCraveTV.", E-Commerce Law Weekly (February 2, 2000).
・Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV, No. 00121 (W.D. Pa. 1/28/00).
・"FIRST CYBERSQUATTING CASE UNDER WIPO PROCESS JUST CONCLUDED.", World Intellectual Property Organization, Press Release (January 14, 2000).
・Marcia Coyle, "Justices Visit 'Wal-Mart': Case might produce a clearer 'trade dress' protection rule.", The National Law Journal (January 19, 2000).
"...Trade dress once referred only to the way a product was presented to the marketplace -- its packaging or label.
Today, it includes the design and appearance of the product itself, 'its total visual image, including its shape and texture,'..."
"...product design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive. He maintains that in the alternative, design cannot be protected unless it has secondary meaning: It is not inherently distinctive from day one, but over time people have associated the design with a particular maker."
・Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc., No. 99-150. (U.S. Argured on 1/19/2000).
・"Briefs Filed in Trade Dress Case on Proof Of Inherently Distinctive Product Designs.", 59 PTCJ 426 (January 7, 2000).
・Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 USPQ 759 (2d Cir. 1976).
・Seabrook Foods Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 196 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1977).
・"Copying 'Line' of Kids' Clothes Was Trade Dress and Copyright Infringement.", 57 PTCJ (January 14, 1999).
...We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether trade dress that is inherently distinctive is protectible under 43(a) without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning. 502 U.S. 1071 (1992). We find that it is, and we therefore affirm.
...We agree with the Court of Appeals that proof of secondary meaning is not　required to prevail on a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act where the trade dress at issue is inherently distinctive, and accordingly the judgment of that court is affirmed.
"Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, and any person who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or used, shall be liable to a civil action by any person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation." 60 Stat. 441. This provision has been superseded by Section 132 of the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 3946, 15 U. S. C. Section 1121.
Footnote 4.	Secondary meaning is used generally to indicate that a mark or dress "has come through use to be uniquely associated with a specific source." Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition Section 13, Comment e (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 23, 1990). "To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself." Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 851, n. 11 [214 USPQ 1] (1982).
...In this circumstance, trademark law says that the word (e.g., "Trim"), although not inherently distinctive, has developed "secondary meaning." See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982) ("secondary meaning" is acquired when "in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself"). Again, one might ask, if trademark law permits a descriptive word with secondary meaning to act as a mark, why would it not permit a color, under similar circumstances, to do the same?
・APBnews.com, "It's Hollywood vs. the Web in DVD Suit.", FindLaw Legal News (Jan. 17, 2000).
・Universal City Studios Inc. v. Reimerdes, No. 00 Civ. 277 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. 1/20/00).
・DVD Copy Control Association Inc. v. McLaughlin, No. CV-786804 (Sup. Ct. Calif. 1/21/00).
・Howard Mintz, "Judge to rule soon on DVD suit.", Mercury News (January 18, 2000).
・Reuters, "U.S. judge orders DVD hack off Internet sites" FindLaw Legal Headline News (Jan 21, 2000).
・GREG MILLER, "Film Industry Wins Ruling in DVD Suit", L.A. Times (Jan. 21, 2000).
・David McGuire, "Another DVD Crypto Injunction Granted In California - Update.", Newsbytes (Jan. 24, 2000).
・Mike Godwin, "Courts Enjoin Sites That Publish DVD Decryption Software: Defendants must now remove decryption software from websites.", E-Commerce Law Weekly (January 28, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Judge Boosts Motion PictureIndustry's DVD Case.", The Recorder/Cal Law (February 4, 2000).
・"Premiere issue of PTO TODAY, the Online Magazine for PTO's Customers.", US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (Jan. 4, 2000).
・Steve Gold, "World Cybercrime Treaty May Be Underway", Newsbytes (Jan. 14, 2000).
・"Offer to Sell Infringing Device In Forum Was Not Specific Enough for Jurisdiction.", 59 PTCJ 399 (December 24, 1999).
・VP Intellectual Properties LLC. v. Imtec Corp., No. 99-3136 (D. N.J. 12/8/99).
・CIVIX-DDI LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1501 (D.C. Colo 10/1/1999).
・CoolSavings.Com Inc. v. IQ.Commerce Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1136 (DC NIll 6/10/1999).
・ALAN YONAN JR., "Change On Encryption Rules Win Praise From Industry, Privacy Groups", Dow Jones Business News (Jan. 12, 2000).
・"Commerce Announces Streamlined Encryption Export Regulations", U.S. Department of Commerce (January 12, 2000).
...Foreign employees of U.S. companies working in the United States no longer need an export license to work on encryption.
...Today's changes do not affect restrictions on terrorist supporting states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria), their nationals, and other sanctioned entities.
・George M. Kraw, "Oh, Never Mind: The feds throw in the towel on encryption export regulation.",　IP WorldWide (Nov. 1999).
...Detailed export regulations are supposed to be made public by Dec. 15. In accompanying legislation, the Cyberspace Enhancement Security Act, or CESA, the administration is no longer insisting on complete government access to all encrypted data.
Derwent News Desk (Jan. 12, 2000).
・Semiconductor Laboratory Co. v. Sanyo North America, et al, (D.Del. filed on Jan. 13, 2000).
・Boyle v. United States, 99-5125 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
・Boyle v. Stephens, Inc., 1998 WL 80175 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1998).
・Boyle v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 60 (1999).
Whenever the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States shall be infringed by the United States, by a corporation owned or controlled by the United States, or by a contractor, subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation acting for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, the exclusive remedy of the owner of such copyright shall be by action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement. . . .
・S. Rep. No. 1877, at 3-4 (1960), reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3444, 3444-45.
The purpose of the proposed legislation, as amended, is to provide a remedy in the Court of Claims for the infringement by the U.S. Government, or by any contractor acting with its consent, of any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States where such infringement was with the authorization or consent of the United States. . . . The language of the bill is to the effect that the exclusive remedy of the owner of the copyright against the United States shall be only in those cases in which the infringement was made with the authorization or consent of the Government. It would, therefore, follow that all other infringements would not transfer liability to the U.S. Government.
(3) when a contractor, subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation, acting for the Government and with its authorization or consent, infringes.
The statute "effects a policy that government wrongdoing in the realm of copyright infringement not go uncompensated. . . . The final clause extends the waiver to third parties acting for the government and with the government's 'authorization or consent.'" Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175, 179 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in the original).
・Victoria Slind-Flor, "PTO's New Guide to DNA Info Scientific community is in conflict on free use of early research" The National Law Journal (January 11, 2000).
・Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 86 S. Ct. 1033 (1966).
・Roche v. Bolar, 733 F.2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856, 225 USPQ 792 (1984).
・Hoechst-Roussel Pharm. Inc. v Lehman, 109 F.3d 756, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
(B) an application under section 512 of such Act or under the Act of March 4, 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151-158) for a drug or veterinary biological product which is not primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques and which is claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug or veterinary biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.
(3) In any action for patent infringement brought under this section, no injunctive or other relief may be granted which would prohibit the making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States or importing into the United States of a patented invention under paragraph (1).
(C) damages or other monetary relief may be awarded against an infringer only if there has been commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or veterinary biological product. The remedies prescribed by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) are the only remedies which may be granted by a court for an act of infringement described in paragraph (2), except that a court may award attorney fees under section 285.
・Eli Lilly & Co. v Medtronic Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 15 USPQ.2d 1121 (1990).
..Petitioner contends that respondent infringed its patents by testing and marketing a medical device known as a cardiac defibrillator. The Court holds that 35 U.S.C.§271(e)(1), a provision of the patent law, may give respondent a defense to this charge. It rules, in particular, that§271(e)(1) will excuse respondent if it acted for the sole purpose of developing information necessary to obtain marketing approval for the device under§515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 90 Stat. 552, 21 U.S.C.§360(e).
・Paper Converting Machine Co. v Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 223 USPQ 591 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We must decide here the extent to which a competitor of a patentee can manufacture and test during the life of a patent a machine intended solely for post-patent use.
・"IBM Leads In U.S. Patents for Seventh Consecutive Year" IBM Press releases (January 11, 2000).
・SABRA CHARTRAND, "More Weapons to Defend Internet Domain Names.", The New York Times (January 10, 2000).
・"ICANN Names Second Referee For Cybersquatting Quarrels.", IP Law Weekly (January 7, 2000).
・Reuters, "'Cybersquatters' targeted by WIPO", ZDNet News (May 3, 1999).
・Jennifer Mack, "Anti-cybersquatting law faces first test: Quokka Sports' battle with New Zealand companies over America's Cup domain is sailing into international waters.", ZDNet News (December 15, 1999).
・"US chip designer in patent suit vs. Asia chipmakers.", FindLaw Legal News (Reuters) NEW YORK (Jan. 6, 2000).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Inventor Claims Rights to Semiconductor Processes.", The Recorder/Cal Law (January 7, 2000).
・Plasma Physics Corp. v. Fujitsu Limited, 99-8593 (E.D. N.Y. filed on Dec. 28, 1999).
・Polaroid Corp. v Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 229 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
本件の原告ポラロイド側代理人は、"Herbert F. Schwartz, Fish & Neave, of New York, N.Y.
ブリーフ（摘要書）に関しては、"Kenneth B. Herman, Edward F. Mullowney, Patricia A. Martone, Richard M. Barnes, Robert J. Goldman, and Kevin J. Culligan, on the brief"
・"The American Lawyer Practice Directories: 1999-2000 Intellectual Property", The American Lawyer Media (2000).
・"GODICI TO BE NOMINATED FOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER .", IPO Daily News (Jan. 6, 2000).
・"IP SUITS.", IPO Daily News (Jan. 6, 2000).
・"Judge sentences company, father, daughter in industrial espionage case.", FindLaw Legal News, Reuters (Jan. 6, 2000).
・Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) 18 U.S.C. Section 1831 et. seq.
・J. Derek Mason, Ph.D., Gerald J. Mossinghoff, David A. Oblon, "The Economic Espionage Act: A Prosecution Update.", The Computer Lawyer, volume 16, March 1999, page 14.
・"The Economic Espionage Act of 1996", Foley & Lardner (1997).
・R. Mark Halligan, Esq., "REPORTED CRIMINAL ARRESTS UNDER THE ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1996"
・"Economic Espionage Act", Bridging the gap (March 31, 1997).
・Joseph Valof, "Overview of Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-294)"
・Victoria Slind-Flor, "Doctors' Group Urges IP Change: AIDS-devastated nations deprived of drugs by patent laws", The National Law Journal (January 4, 2000).
・Mike Godwin, "California Judge Denies TRO Against Distributors Of Software That Defeats DVD Encryption Scheme", E-Commerce Law Weekly (January 5, 2000).
・DVD Copy Control Association v. McLaughlin, No. CV-786804 (Super Ct. Calif., filed and argued 12/29/99).
・Mark Hamblett, "West Competitor Wins Fees in Suit Over Copyright" New York Law Journal (December 20, 1999).
・Hyperlaw Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 94 Civ. 589 (S.D. N.Y. 1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §146
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
sui generis
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 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.