Too much debate makes inventing scarey...

All you have to do is get rid of the dot matrix printer and you don’t infringe.

easily one of my favorite teaching styles so far!

Geat lecture thank you

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.

Thanks.

Thank you!

That was an awesome music video. Just saying.

The audio goes haywire around 35min in.

Sometimes you need to listen to these more than one time, again and again to get it

12:40 what's the point here of writing we as [W]e? Does this has any rule associated with it?

The audio on obviousness 1 becomes horrific about halfway through.

The fact that infringement on a patent is determined by a jury and not an expert judge is crazy.

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 content but the fonts choices are tragic.

Bestiality would be the Story “immoral” violation so Chimeric is out. Just depends on patent agent.

Clear as mud, thanks professor.

Why Penn is the best Ivy League for law school

If you want the whole class to drop ambush students with a boring Econ lecture... zzzzzzzzzz

Why spend $50,000 a year for a Penn law degree when I can audit for free? Genius.

Where is the comparative patent law lecture? Does the US innovate in a vacuum?

So there is no evidence of patents in any culture prior to the Greeks

Should include some comparative patent law...

Interesting lecture. Thanks much.

If a patent document has been stolen in a burglary, and the thief uses it or makes it public, can the original inventor still patent it?

Thank you. The video provides the deep background information I've been looking for, unlike the 10-minute youtube videos or the Nolo book lessons.

there are only 2 lectures, 21 and 22.... where can i find others?

The title is Claim Construction... you never get to it. 47 min wasted.

very complex vedio

Can you please fix the audio on this.

min 22:50 Please change Insulin on the slide to Adrenalin, because it was adrenalin that was purified from adrenal glands

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!

Would you be willing to hear a patent case. Would like to hear your opinion. If so, how can I contact you.

The audio goes bad at 38:54

Thank you very much preparing for uk patent exam principles are very similar I hope this will help me pass

7:20 - - left off here

Stated watching previously; took some notes, today 11.18.18

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 just want to learn how to write a claim its been 20 minutes i you still have not gotten to the point

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHeml42VprWZaJo

This sounds a lot like the arguments for and against the “plain meaning” approach in contract interpretation.

If something is described in a printed publication but isn't patented, then no one can patent it except for the author?

From 0:50 - 1:00 the video gets stuck

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 KZbin 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.

What happens if you forget to add claim 1 in your patent infringement lawsuit?

12:02 I think the plaintiff-defendant was miss placed. Plaintiff was Linde . I might have missed something let me know