In re Lister
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
583 F.3d 1307, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225 (2009)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Dr. Richard Lister (plaintiff) drafted a manuscript outlining a new method of playing golf. He obtained registration of the manuscript with the United States Copyright Office on July 18, 1994. The Copyright Office kept a copy of the manuscript on file and available for public inspection upon request. There were two databases available for searching for the manuscript. On August 5, 1996, Lister filed an application to patent the manuscript with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Lister made an information disclosure statement (IDS) to the USPTO stating that the information contained in the databases available for searching the Copyright Office’s archives “comes directly from the Library of Congress.” The IDS contained no information—and the government did not provide any evidence at trial—with respect to specific dates the manuscript became available on the databases. Nor did the government present evidence with respect to the general practices of the databases with respect to cataloging information from the Copyright Office. The USPTO examiner rejected Lister’s application on novelty grounds, finding that the manuscript was a publicly accessible printed publication due to Lister’s registration with the Copyright Office. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) affirmed. Lister appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prost, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
