2L-3L Upper Level Lesson Topics

This lesson focuses on one of the factual inquiries underlying the legal determination of nonobviousness: the scope and content of the prior art. It assumes that you are familiar with the patentability requirement of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §102 and with the basic framework of the obviousness analysis. If you would like a review of the basic framework for determining obviousness, you may want to do the lesson on "Basic Concepts of Nonobviousness" before you complete this lesson.

This lesson works through the details of patent law's novelty requirement as set out in Section 102(a) of the Patent Act. It also briefly covers Section 102(e) and inventorship. It does not deal with Section 102(b) statutory bars.

A general understanding of the nature of claims and the application process is assumed background context. The lesson can be used as supplemental preparation for class, to confirm your understanding afterwards or as a final self-test before the exam.

This lesson can serve as an introduction or review of the way in which "secondary considerations" are used in assessing the nonobviousness requirement in patent law. The lesson assumes a basic familiarity with the nonobviousness doctrine. Before doing this lesson, students may wish to review the lesson dealing with Basic Concepts of Nonobviousness. Other aspects of the nonobviousness doctrine are covered in the lesson dealing with Scope and Content of the Prior Art. Students may do this lesson either before or after that lesson.

In addition to the limitations imposed upon interrogations by Miranda, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel also constrain law enforcement authority in the interrogation context. This lesson will discuss those additional constitutional limitations. Although it isn't necessary to have mastered the Miranda limitations at this point, some familiarity with those standards will be helpful.

This lesson is an analytical guide to the study of two major aspects of evidence: relevance and hearsay. The vehicle used by this guide is a step by step, nine question analysis, applicable to any admissibility of evidence problem. This lesson should help one determine whether any item of evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence pertaining to relevance and hearsay. The answers to the first four questions determine whether any item of proffered evidence is admissible under the two components of relevancy: logical and legal relevancy.

This lesson reviews the threshold principles of ownership by analyzing the "works made for hire" doctrine codified in the Copyright Act of 1976.

A hundred years ago, a law professor said of the parol evidence rule, "There are few things darker than this or fuller of subtle difficulties." Many students and professionals who have studied the rule would agree with that assessment. Hopefully this exercise will illuminate the rule. It does so by examining the functions served by the rule, taking the user through a series of questions that can be used to resolve most issues involving the application of the rule. The Uniform Commercial Code enactment of the rule is examined in detail.

This lesson deals with the dissociation of partners under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA). It discusses the events that result in dissociation under Section 601 of the RUPA, whether dissociation is wrongful or not, and touches on the consequences of wrongful dissociation.

This is the first of three lessons dealing with dissociation and dissolution under the RUPA. The second lesson in the series discusses the causes of partnership dissolution and the Article 7 buyout right for dissociated partners when the partnership is not dissolved. The second lesson also covers liability issues that arise after the dissociation of a partner. The third lesson in the series discusses the consequences of dissolution--the winding up process and the payment of partner accounts.

This lesson discusses the causes of dissolution of partnerships and the Article 7 buyout right under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA). It also discusses the liability of a dissociated partner for partnership obligations and the liability of the partnership for the post-dissociation actions of the partner. This lesson does not deal with the causes of a partner's dissociation under Section 601 of the RUPA, except as necessary to a discussion of dissolution. Dissociation is dealt with in a separate lesson.

This is an introduction to the sharing of profits and losses by partners in a general partnership. The lesson has three parts: (1) a general introduction to the default rules concerning how partners share profits and losses; (2) a discussion of partnership accounts; and (3) a discussion of the distribution rules applicable when a partnership is dissolved and its business is wound up.

This lesson covers the kinds of inventions that can be patented. The first section discusses how the Constitution and the federal Patent Act (specifically Section 101) define and limit those categories of innovations, including the open issues in that on-going debate. The second section offers a variety of problems ranging from the straight-forward to the more complex, permitting confirmation of understanding and practice in application.

This is a lesson for reviewing the emerging rights of the nonmarital child and the nonmarital father.