This channel hosts video lectures and other video content for the Patent Law & Policy course at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, taught by Professor Polk Wagner.
I love that near the end of each of these lectures, the professor turns into a demonic creature speaking the tongue of satan and then returns to human language. Comic relief 😂
I disagree with the 'comma' argument because back in the day and still in British English, a comma is typically used before 'and'. Americans found that extra comma often confusing and unnecessary and decided to drop it as a norm from American English. So, the comma after the written description to me seems more like a remnant of the way grammar was done in the past rather than a true separation of written description from enabled requirement. Even today an American would write "cat, bat and mouse" while a Britisher would write "cat, bat, and mouse". In this text, you can see there is a comma even after concise before the and. Does that mean 'full, clear, concise' are separate from the 'exact terms'? No. In the past, they would've used a semicolon if they were truly trying to declare these as separate requirements. To me this text is mostly just saying there should be a written description in the application, not so much that the entire enablement has to be written and can't be drawn etc.
I agree. I feel like the strongest argument in my opinion for having a "separate written description" is that people would start trying to do the enablement requirement only through the formal drawings with labels? Or maybe some people in the past tried doing so. Other than that, I really don't see how the written description and enablement requirements are separate whatsoever.
Wow! After your video series, I can be a patent representative. It boils down to what the Supreme Court has decided, no matter how confusing, and fulfilling the requirements to the buzz words. I was so lost on starting my patent and only came across internet scammers that are not even liers, or lawyers and want a couple of hundreds dollars here and there then if they see fit, they will advise to speak to one of their referral patent lawyers. Why don't they start there? What a racket. Your lectures makes it so clear and down to earth with no legal mumbo jumbo vernacular and lingo that makes me think of taking this profession seriously. Thank you for the great lectures. I loved watching the power point type screens and not a law professor lecturing from a lectern. Stay safe FJB Out!
good question. Although unfair to the inventor, I don't think the inventor can patent it since he has nothing to exchange for a patent right (make it public)
Yes. In the case of theft from the inventor where the thief makes the invention public, we treat it the same as if it’s the inventors disclosure. In post-AIA that would trigger the 1 year grace period
THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE. IF THE GOVERNMENT 'INFRINGED' ON THE RIGHTS THEY BROKE THE CONTRACT AND THE PEOPLE HAVE THE 'RIGHT' TO REVOLT AND REMOVE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT BROKE THAT CONTRACT! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS ACTIVELY STOMPING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, SO 'WE THE PEOPLE' MAY, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, REMOVE THOSE THAT 'INFRINGE 'ON OUR RIGHTS!
This is an excellent lecture series. I'm not a lawyer but, interested in ethics, justice, law etc. in general, and being a technical person, I have been interested in how these concepts apply to new discoveries and inventions i.e. patents. I had been looking for some material on the internet, and just came across one of these lectures by chance. I was so impressed by the Professor's clarity, comprehensiveness and approach that I have now subscribed to the channel and going through all the lectures systematically. The lectures are so understandable to a lay person like me yet, they don't seem to miss any of the intricate details that a professional patent lawyer would need to know. Thank you Prof. Wagner! We need more professors like you in all areas of education. You are amazing!
I have listened to most if not all of these many times and I have to say this one is a confusing mess and puts me to sleep not because of lack of interest. Too much material is crammed into the time and so lecturer is rushing to finish, not to be clear. Lecture Seems less prepared. Hard to tell what if any of it applies to after AIA patents and if not why not. This is sometimes a problem in the other lectures too. Always making excuses for court rulings even when inconsistent or just wrong. Sometimes that the court was just wrong is what is really obvious, like the corset ruling vs the paving ruling. The corset ruling was a bunch of misogynists deciding corsets don’t need to be tested. Why did the paving have to be tested on a TOLL road? It didn’t, but that court bought that BS. Would love to hear recordings of the class discussions. Screw Colgate and GM for stealing from poor inventors. I listen to lots of patent lawyer webinars, some apparently geared only toward practicing patent lawyers, and one thing for sure lawyers only look at the world thru their own eyes and have great difficulty communicating with lay people even educated ones, because they make little if any effort to.
Whoever at the USPTO that came up with the idea that the inventor’s own documents for the invention should be called prior art was an idiot. Why no comparison of patent law to copyright law? Disney bribed politicians repeatedly to get copyright extended currently to 95 years and climbing. What does the public get in return for that? Zilch!
What if I I upload a video saying “” Walking dead full episode” but I don’t show the full episode on RU-vid but I provide the full episode in the description???
The know-it-alls at the Brookings Institute are making proposals to charge more for patent applications and do away with a tiered fee structure to the detriment of micro entities. They claim it is widely agreed that too many patents are being granted. I listened to every lecture on this series and read several books in the subject and I don’t remember that being widely agreed upon. They state “Because patent applications are legally presumed to comply with the statutory patentability requirements when led, the burden of proving unpatentability rests with the Agency” I don’t remember that either. It seems to me the burden of proof of anything is primarily on the applicant unless you have the money to take them to appeals court. The Brookings Institute people only cite one study, hardly proof of anything and they basically never cite the numerical figures but instead use vague language. These are the same people that on NPR today said women won’t file fir patents unless they know other women who have filed for a patent. The USPTO has joined the “women need special help” bandwagon and claim a black woman invented the predecessor to the modern ironing board. What she patented looks nothing like anything fir ironing in wide use today and was just for ironing sleeves or garments we don’t wear today. The Brookings Institute basically accuses the USPTO of granting a higher rate to corporations paying the higher fees and of granting patents that it knows are invalid to get more revenue any yet never mentions the possibility that the USPTO might also be incentivized to deny patents outright to save time and insure they get more revenue from the new fee structure which requires payment of additional fees soon thereafter during prosecution. They ignore any theories that don’t conform to their agenda and probably any statistics too. Just what we need, more people who have never even filed for a patent much less invented anything telling us how it should be done. Based on what I have learned it is harder that ever to get a patent past the non-obvious requirement so what are they talking about? It hasn’t even been long enough since the law was changed for them to have proper statistics. If these people ran the USPS they, like Trump, would want to charge twice what UPS charges to send a package.
Mark Pope, really? You had to bring Trump politics into this? I was appreciating your thoughts but as a MAGA guy, you totally lost my appreciation as your bitterness has skewed my opinion of your ability to provide a fair evaluation of the subject.
First of all thank you so much for all these videos they are truly splendid. However, i have 2 remarks/question concerning this one; i researched more and found this; 1) The date of the The Lowell vs Lewis case is 1817 not 1917. 2) The date of the Re Fisher case is 2005 not 2000. Therefore, the USPTO 2001 guidelines did not really ''follow up'' on the Re Fisher case. PS: Please someone correct me if i am in the wrong. A clarification would mean the world to me.
