Table Of ContentPATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS
Spring 2000
Volume One
Professor Rosemary J. Coombe and Brad Limpert
(With the Assistance of Abbey-Jane McGrath)
1
2 BOM im LAS UBRARt l
jm2nm
I fftCULTY Of LM
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS
Spring 2000
Volume One
Professor Rosemary J. Coombe and Brad Limpert
(With the Assistance of Abbey-Jane McGrath)
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
University of Toronto
https://archive.org/details/patentstradesecr01coom
PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS
Spring 2000
Volume One
Table of Contents
I. mSTORY AND POLICY
A. Debates about the Doctrine's Rationale
Bone, “A New Look at Trade Secret Law: Doctrine in Search of Justification” (1998) . . . 1
Scheppele, “Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law” (1989). 15
Bone, “A New Look at Trade Secret Law...” (cont..).32
Kitch, “Law and Economics of Rights in Valuable Information” (1980). 51
B. Employer’s Interests
Kugler, “Limiting Trade Secret Protection” (1988). 59
Hitchman, “Trade Secrets and Know-How” (1998). 65
n. THE BASIS FOR THE LEGAL ACTION
A. General Principles
Coco. v. A. N. Clark Engineers.74
International Tools v. Kollar .77
Saltman Engineering .81
Coco. v. A. N. Clark.81
B. What is the Trade Secret?
Faccenda Chicken v. Fowler .83
Sweet Factory v. Hudson’s Bay Co.94
C. Reasonable Precautions to Protect Secrecy
"Silicon Valley, Where the Conversation Comes With a Caveat. Ill
“The Concept of Reasonableness in the Protection of Trade Secrets” (1987). 113
Crain v. Ashton.119
Tree Savers International v. Savoy.124
m. REMEDIES
A. Civil Remedies
Pepsi Co. v.Redmond .129
Cadbury Schweppes v. FBI Foods.138
Mercury Marine.157
LAC Minerals.165
B. Criminal Remedies ?
R. v. Stewart.168
A. Weinrib, “Information and Property” (1988) . 174
Steele and Trenton, “Trade Secrets: The Need for Criminal Liability” (1998) . 189
IV. PRACTICAL ASPECTS TO TRADE SECRET MANAGEMENT
A. Ascertaining Ownership
Binns and Robinson, “Co-Ownership of Confidential Information” (1998). 194
B. Before the Employee Leaves
Cunliffe, “Maximum Security: How to Prevent Departing Employees from Putting
Your Trade Secrets to Work” (1992) . 199
Ridley, et al, “Guidelines for the Use of Confidentiality Agreements” (1999)
“A Primer on Nondisclosure Agreements”.208
C. When the Employee Leaves
Cunliffe, “Maximum Security...” (cont...).214
D. Before You Hire the Next Employee
Cunliffe, “Maximum Security...” (cont...).219
PATENTS
I. HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
Henderson, “An Introduction to Patent Law” (1993). 222
Hettinger, “Justifying Intellectual Property” (1989) . 226
Vaver, “Intellectual Property Myths and Paradoxes” (1990) . 247
Thurow, “Building Wealth” (1999) . 259
• •
u
n. ECONOMICS OF INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Lehmann, “Property and Intellectual Property” (1989) . 271
Mandeville, “An Information Economics Perspective on Innovation” (1998) . 286
Binkley, “Patent Rights and New Product Development in Canada” (1999). 293
Merges and Nelson, “On the Complex Economics of the Patent Scope” (1990) . 299
Heller & Eisenberg, “Can Patents Deter Innovation?” (1998) . 309
Dickson, “Open House or Closed Shop?” (1999). 313
III. . SUMMARY OVERVIEW
Ross, “Beyond the Better Mousetrap” (1987). 315
IV. PREREQUISITES FOR THE PATENT
A. PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
1. General
Manual of Patent Office Practice.342
Shell Oil v. Commissioner of Patents.344
2. Biotechnology
Diamond v. Charkrabarty .348
Pioneer Hi-Bred.356
Harvard Mouse Case.360
3. Computers
Diamond v. Diehr.373
Patent Guidelines .374
Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents.381
Reprinted from Donald H. MacOdrum. Patent Law in Canada: Cases and
Materials (Unpublished, 1998 . 382
4. Methods of Doing Business
Lawson v. Commissioner of Patents.385
State Street.393
B. OBVIOUSNESS
Hayhurst, “Obviousness: The Art of Second Guessing” (1988) . 401
Cooley, “The Status of Obviousness and How to Assert it as a Defence” (1994). 413
Bayer v. Apotex.425
C. NOVELTY
Novelty and Non-Obviousness (A Chart).436
1. What Must be Anticipated?
Reeves Bros v. Toronto Quilting & Embroidery .439
Diversified v. Tye-Sil.439
2. Prior Publication
Beloit v. Valmet.440
3. Public Use
Windsurfing Inti v. Tabur Marine.442
4. Experimental Use
Canadian Patent Scaffolding v. Delzotto .446
D. UTILITY
1. Introduction
2. Case Law
Otta v. Commissioner of Patents.455
X. v. Commissioner of Patents.458
Mettaliflex v. Rodi & Wienenberger Aktengesellschaft .459
Burton Parsons.461
Mentmore Mftg. v.. National Merchandise.466
Hatmaker v. Joseph Nathan.467
Feherguard Products .469
3. The Nature of the Evidence .472
iv
