Inventive Step and Non-obviousness and Sporting Event

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Inventive step and non-obviousness, Patentability, Patent
  • Pages : 1 (272 words )
  • Download(s) : 162
  • Published : March 13, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
1 messages - 1 unread
Case 7.2—Question (Page 141)
The Global Dimension
Q1: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a universal principle of proximate cause applied everywhere by all courts in all relevant cases? Discuss. Case 7.3—Questions (Page 144)
Q2: Should the courts distinguish between different levels of participation in a sporting event when determining liability? Explain. Case 8.1—Question (Page 153)
What If the Facts Were Different?
Q3: Suppose that Coca-Cola had been trying to make the public believe that its product contained cocaine. Would the result in the case likely have been different? Why or why not? Case 8.2—Questions (Page 160)

Q4:Suppose that a person of ordinary skill creates an item by implementing a predictable variation of another’s patented invention. Does the Court’s opinion indicate that the item is likely or unlikely to be patentable? Discuss.

No, I believe courts should not distinguish between different levels of participation in a sporting event when determining liability. Anyone participating in a sporting event should anticipate the possibility that there may be flying objects, whether a ball or bat or a stick, and that they have to stay alert at all time. For instance if Joe attended a baseball game and a player hit the ball hardly enough that it traveled left the field, hit Joe and caused some serious damage, could Joe sue? Joe can sue, but the lawsuit will have not merit because at this point Joe knew the danger or the possibility of getting stuck by a ball. There would not be any direct and proximate negligent conduct here.
tracking img