International/Foreign Activities

• Paris Convention– Prior user rights – article 4(b) p. 510

• Westinghouse case and variants– Recent plant cases

• Recent developments– China joined WTO 2001

Prior User Rights

• Do not exist under US law– EXCEPT business method patents, 35 USC

273

• Well-known in foreign patent law

• Theoretical case in favor of them

The case for prior user rights

• Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Independent Invention Defense in Intellectual Property, 69 Economica 535-547 (2002)

– Prior user rights efficient if cost of duplicating invention are not too high

• John S. Liebovitz, Note, Inventing a Nonexclusive Patent System, 111 Yale L.J. 2251 (2002).

Westinghouse

Spring, 1904

De Kando builds invention on Valtellina Railway, Italy

6.28.1905

Armstrong files US

5.4.04

Waterman brings knowledge of DeKando into US

Westinghouse holding

• Foreign activity communicated to person entering US cannot establish conception date in US– NB: role of old statute section 4923– “foreign patent or publication” the only

relevant foreign activities under US law

Westinghouse fine points

• Priority vs anticipation– See p 520– Neither party gets patent? Both anticipated?– ONLY Armstrong patent validity at issue in

Westinghouose case

• Priority would be a different matter!

Priority rules

• Thomas case p. 521– Foreign activity can be used to establish US

priority date WHEN INFO ENTERS US– See cases in Badie article p. 521

Recent plant patent controversy

• In re Zary and In re Elsner– Foreign public sale of embodiment of US

invention

• Popeil Bros., 494 F2 162 (7 Cir 1974) (foreign sale of patented item, dscribed in instruction manuals; manuals constitute publication)

Foreign sales cont’d

• LeGrice rule, 301 F2 929 (CCPA 1962)

– Supplement disclosure with knowledge of one skilled in art