Skip to content
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Business Services
    • Schedule of Classes
    • View Evaluations
    • Identity Resources
    • RoloLaw
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff

    Support

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • COVID-19 Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Event Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    Student Services

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • Student Services Office
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Frequently Asked Questions & Rule Clarifications
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Mindfulness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • Criminal Justice
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • Engage with Berkeley Law Online Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Thesis Track
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Instructions
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Financial Aid
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Professional Development
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing for LL.M. Students
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admissions
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Instructions
          • Check Your Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • Events Calendar »
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • Two Year Curriculum Plan
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional and Thesis Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Meet Our Team
        • View the Prospectus
        • Webinars
        • Recruiting and Information Events
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Diversity at Berkeley Law
        • Diversity News
      • The Berkeley Experience
        • U.C. Berkeley Campus
        • Berkeley and the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
        • Fees & Cost of Attendance
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Forms
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Application Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • LRAP FAQs
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
      • Our Role in Dismantling Systemic Racism
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • International Human Rights Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Independent Investigation of the Murder of Berta Cáceres
        • Living with Impunity: Unsolved Murders in Oakland and the Human Rights Impact on Victims’ Family Members
        • A New Border Vision
        • Who Will Be Left to Defend Human Rights? Persecution of Online Expression in the Gulf and Neighboring Countries
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • IHRLC 20th Anniversary
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • New Business Community Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
        • Services to California’s Central Valley
        • New Businesses
        • Events
        • Apply for Services
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • 2014 Fall Startup Workshop Series
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
        • Clinic News
        • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
        • Resources and Publications
        • Information for Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How To Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • DA Accountability & Participatory Defense Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
        • SLPS Champions
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawaii
          • Mississippi
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Kentucky
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
      • Advocacy Competitions Program
        • Tryout Procedures
        • Student Eligibility & How to Contact Us
        • Internal Competitions
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • Halloum Negotiations Competition (Spring)
          • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
          • Bales Trial Competition
          • Pahlke Internal Trial Competition (PINT)
          • The Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Joint Venture Challenge
        • External Competitions
          • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
          • Moot Court Team
          • Trial Team
        • Writing Competitions
        • 2021 ABA Negotiation Competition
        • Travel Reimbursements
        • Our Supporters
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • Berkeley Law in The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • How to Apply
      • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • Resources
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2020 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2021 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Spring 2021 Video Library
        • BerkeleyBase
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Domestic Violence Law Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • Companion Seminar
      • Former Students
      • Impact of DVP
      • Domestic Violence Field Placement Internships
      • News
      • Photos
      • Student Writing
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • Appointments and Drop-in Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • Find Private Sector Jobs
          • 2022 OCI: EIW & FIP
          • OCI Alternatives
          • SIP – Spring 2022
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • CDO PIPS Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions and Materials
        • OSCAR Resources
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Other Clerkship Resources
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
        • State Court Resources
      • Judicial Externships
      • Academic Careers
        • FAQ
        • Further Reading
        • Alumni Contacts
        • Links
        • Webcasts
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • Interview Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Alumni Resource Collection
      • Help the CDO
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
      • 2018 Clerkship Yearbook
  • Racial Justice
Home Articles News An Essay on the Legacy of Chisum on Patents

An Essay on the Legacy of Chisum on Patents

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article



Media Advisory

Robert Merges originally wrote this essay, previously unpublished, on the thirtieth anniversary of Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement (1978-present).
Merges has generously provided Written Description with a copy. In the
essay, Merges discusses the world of patent law scholarship in the 1970s
and the significant effect Chisum’s treatise had within the patent
community.
Thirty years is a long time. In the field of patent law, especially. In
our little corner of the legal world, hot topics and controversies –
like the new technologies we study every day – come so fast and furious
that even ten years seems an eon. (Remember the world before the TRIPS
amendments? How about the big dustup in the 1990s over “equitable
equivalents”?) That is why it seemed so remarkable when, one day a while
ago, I happened to notice that Chisum on Patents turned 30 this year.
Some milestones come and go, with nary a thought about them, like one’s
29th birthday, or the fifth anniversary of a root canal. But something
about 30 years of Chisum on our shelves just caught my attention. Here
was something truly noteworthy, something I could not in good conscience
just let slip by.
In this little essay, I want to make two points about the treatise.
First, that it was, at its launching, an act of great bravado and daring
– one we have all benefitted from enormously in the ensuing years. And
second, that it has been not only a report or record of the many giant
changes in the field since the late 1970s, but also an active agent in
them – a participant, and not just a witness. Neither of these points is
self-evident when one cracks open (or boots up) the current version of
the treatise.
What comes to mind when you think of 1978? In areas of great import, not
much, I would be willing to bet. Personal milestones there were
aplenty, as there always are. But on the great world stage, or at least
the corner of it that cuts through the U.S., it was a lackluster year in
what was in many ways a lackluster era. Inflation was 7.6%, on its way
to the highwater mark of 13.6% a few years later. It was only three
years after the end of Vietnam, four years on from Watergate, five years
from the “first” oil shock, and only a year before the next one. Jimmy
Carter was in the middle of his one Presidential term, well before he
perfected the role of long-time ex-President. Popular bands included
Hall and Oats and The Carpenters. The number one hit single was “Staying
Alive” by the Bee Gees. The most popular TV show was “Three’s Company.”
I could go on, but I won’t. The point is this: 1978, mostly a year to
forget.
One of the last things on most people’s minds in 1978 was technological
innovation. The 1970s zeitgeist was decidedly anti-technology, partly a
legacy of the 1960s (with its back-to-the-garden ethic), and partly, it
seems in retrospect, because most people had neither the energy nor the
optimism to show an interest in anything new and bold. The entire
culture in fact seemed downright fatigued. Scholarly discourse, when it
touched on technology at all, emphasized mostly negative themes:
alienation, exploitation, environmental degradation.1
The geek or nerd culture associated with the advent of personal
computers was still a few years away; slide-rule toting types were
dismissed as “capitalist tools,” or at most hopelessly irrelevant to
what was really going on.2
Into this miasma of despondence and ennui waded Donald Chisum of the
University of Washington Law School of Seattle. He came bearing a new
treatise on an obscure and, for many years, suspect area of law,
Patents. He came with new energy and the promise of a young, eager,
analytic mind. To say that he was swimming upstream would be a supreme
understatement. From this distance, it looks more like he was spitting
in the ocean, or even launching himself off a cliff.
Of course, for a true contrarian, this was just the sort of inauspicious
time that is, paradoxically, most auspicious of all. The field of
patent treatises was, to put it mildly, wide open in 1978.3
For a sense of just how blank the slate was, consider that when
Professor Chisum wrote his first substantive law review article on
patent law in the 1970s, he was still citing for support the venerable
Robinson treatise – written in 1890!4 True, there was the Deller’s Walker on Patents treatise, a comprehensive and original work when first published in 18835;
but by 1978 it had long ceased to reflect the vision of a single
author, and had fallen into the bloated and scattered form from which it
was not rescued until Carl Moy created the modern edition in 2003.6
But while patent law as a discipline may have been thoroughly out of
style in 1978, a string of fascinating issues was arrayed just along the
horizon. A foreward- looking person would have noted these contemporary
developments: The basic breakthroughs behind genetic engineering had
just occurred (the Cohen-Boyer patent was filed in 1974, and Genentech
was formed in 1976). Computer technology, driven in part by the space
exploration program, was accelerating its serious penetration into
business and society. The Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), riding
the wave of popularity from its pioneering PDP computers, was
introducing the revolutionary VAX “minicomputer” in 1978, which not only
ushered in a hardware revolution but also, perhaps more importantly,
marked the advent of two pathbreaking software innovations: the Unix
operating system and the “C” programming language. (Chisum’s time as an
undergraduate and law student at Stanford would have brought him into
close proximity to all these developments – Cohen at Stanford, along
with the computer science department, and Boyer and “Berkeley Unix”
across the Bay).
It is interesting to look back at some law review articles Professor
Chisum wrote in the period leading up to the first edition of the
Treatise. In “The Sources of Prior Art,”7
published in 1975, we see a scholar growing in sophistication – and
getting hooked on the intricacies of patent law in the bargain. Consider
this classic example of a patent law conundrum, drawn from the
ever-fascinating (and factually gnarly)8 case of In re Bass:9
The policy aspects of the Bass holding are also of interest. . . . [T]he
combination of the fiction of separate inventorship and the use of
prior invention as prior art means that Company M may obtain a patent
only on A or on B even though
its research effort and investment produced both. This may discourage
some research or induce secrecy where that is possible.10
Right here in this passage, you can almost sense Professor Chisum
warming to that unique combination that describes certain complex but
important areas of law such as patents and tax: the marriage of
conceptual and doctrinal complexity with significant questions of social
policy. He was able to grasp the complex doctrinal issue in the Bass
case, and explain it clearly: surely, the treatise writer’s first duty,
and one he discharged absolutely faithfully, in this article and soon
thereafter in the Treatise. But more importantly, he saw what was at
stake in the fabric of the doctrine, why it mattered. Finding multiple
inventive entities present in a single unified R&D group was
illogical, and might lead to underinvestment in research. Professor
Chisum saw and understood, even in the hazy days of the 1970s, that this
was not good, and needed to be fixed. (It was, in 1984.)
Doctrinal clarity and a willingness to say where he stands on certain difficult issues are hallmarks of the Chisum Treatise.11
His treatment of the Bass case is typical. In this as with so many
other instances, he has carefully explained doctrines, pointed out
irreconcilable conflicts in the caselaw, and, often, staked out a
distinct position. Nonobviousness-type double patenting;
product-by-process claims; even the murky waters of written description –
Chisum patiently explains them all, the whole glorious field. And then
often gives his readers a “bottom line.” That is the mark of a really
helpful – and often, influential – treatise. The author shows
authoritatively that he or she knows the field inside out. And then, on
the important issues, he or she chooses a position. There are plenty of
string-cites in Chisum, as he dutifully notes that “the cases are
legion” on both sides of one dichotomous doctrine or another. (Reading
claims in light of the specification, versus “reading in” limitations,
as one example.) But frequently, in areas where the cases are seriously
strained, he comes right out and chooses sides. That’s why the treatise
is so valuable, and why it has endured. Chisum is not just a neutral
observer. He often enters the fray (with dignity, of course – not to
mention a lot of footnotes.)
Another hallmark of the Chisum Treatise is perhaps less noticed, but
equally important: its deep commitment to history. Chisum took the time,
with each major doctrine, to trace its earliest origins, with special
emphasis on Supreme Court treatment. This I think had two effects, one
immediate and the other slower to develop. The immediate effect was to
remind readers of the Treatise that there had been a time in American
history when the highest court in the land routinely dealt with patent
cases. This was not widely appreciated in 1978; the Supreme Court, with a
few major exceptions (Brenner v. Manson, Graham v. John Deere, Gottschalk v. Benson),
had largely absented itself from the field beginning in the 1950s. And,
within the patent community, what memories there were of Supreme Court
interest were not good: Justice Douglas’ assault on the field, and the
generally low esteem with which patents were held by the highest
tribunal during the 1940s and 1950s, had created the sense that patent
law was at best a tolerated stepchild, and at worst an antiquated evil,
of the federal system. (This was, after all, the highwater mark of the
“patents = monopolies” period.) In this context, the field could only
welcome Chisum’s concise but thorough mini-histories. Reminders that the
giants of U.S. jurisprudence – Story, Taft, Holmes, Brandeis – had not
only troubled themselves with patents, but often looked with favor upon
them, came as a wonderful reminder of patent law’s historical
importance. These little history lessons also pointed the way to a
future when the status of the field would improve, and the past would be
regained. In fact, they have proven enormously helpful to researchers
over the past ten or twelve years, now that the Court (with a capital
“C”) has re-entered the patent fray with great interest.
Reading these passages, most of which were written for the first
edition, it is clear exactly where Professor Chisum stood on the
important policy questions that lie at the heart of patent law. When it
came to whether research and development, or new technologies generally,
were important enough to protect and encourage, or even worth studying
at all, Chisum stood with the early giants of the U.S. patent system –
Story, Fessenden, Daniel Webster, and the rest. He was for it.
Technology, progress, economic growth – he was for all of it. His law
review writing, and later the treatise, bear implicit witness to
Chisum’s belief that the patent system was about something important.
This more than anything else is what makes it so distinctive, what sets
it apart from the general run of scholarly interest back in 1978. It was
a seriously contrarian project at the outset. Only much later did the
rest of the world – and much, much later, the legal academy – catch up
with Chisum’s foresight and optimism. We who continue to learn from his
treatise can be grateful indeed that he was so far ahead. It is in this
spirit of praise, and pride in our shared endeavor, that I salute
Professor Chisum and his Treatise for their contributions over these
past 30 years. Bravo, Don! And here’s to many more years, and maybe even
a few more volumes, of the best and most comprehensive treatise our
fascinating field has even seen.
1. Interestingly, even the young Professor Chisum – himself a
1968 law school graduate – reveals a hint of this posture in a very
early article criticizing corporate management for resisting demands of
“activist” shareholders such as those who wanted to censure Dow Company
for its role in making napalm. See Donald S. Chisum, Napalm, Proxy Proposals and the SEC, 12 Ariz. L. Rev. 463 (1970).
2. For a sense of what was “hot,” consider one of Professor Chisum’s first scholarly efforts. See Donald S. Chisum, In Defense of Modern Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 21 DePaul L. Rev. 682 (1972).
3. In fact, treatises as a whole were in the process of
receiving an intellectual requiem at the time. Consider this passage
from Grant Gilmore, writing (nostalgically) of the days when scholars
dared to consider law fixed and stable enough to venture a comprehensive
treatise:
Against this background of long-continued social, economic and political
stability, American law had [by 1930] apparently achieved a sort of
legal nirvana. The great treatises of Wigmore, Williston and others had
organized, rationalized and purified the major fields into which we
divide the Corpus Juris. The American Law Institute was about to
complete its strange task of reducing the fundamental principles of the
common law to black letter text in the Restatements. The idea of law — a
stable law for a stable society — seems to have achieved an
extraordinary degree of popular acceptance, among laymen and lawyers
alike.
Grant Gilmore, Friedrich Kessler, 84 Yale L. J. 672, 675 (1975). Gilmore’s own view, made famous in his little book The Death of Contract (1974),
was that the “classical” structure of contract law was breaking down in
the 1970s, and giving way to a policy mediated amalgam of contracts and
torts some called “contorts.”
4. See Donald S. Chisum, Sources of Prior Art in Patent Law,
52 Wash. L. Rev. 1, 1 n. 4 (1976). It should be noted that a short,
three volume treatise called Patent Law Fundamentals was first published
in 1975 by Peter Rosenberg, an examiner at the PTO. Chisum did not cite
this work in any of his early articles, and its appearance in 1975 did
not seem to dissuade Don fro pursuing his own treatise project.
5. For those of us who first came upon the Walker
treatise in its later, dissolute state, it is instructive to look at the
original edition of 1883. In the Preface, the author Albert Henry
Walker first notes that his new treatise covers 1256 judicial opinions, a
big improvement over the prior art, the best of which covered a mere
280 opinions (plus 160 or so from Britain). Walker then writes:
I began writing on the first day of May of [1881], and soon became so
much interested in the work, that I largely suspended my active practice
of the law, in order to give the book the freshest of my efforts, and
thus the greatest degree of merit consistent with my abilities. The
resulting treatise covers the entire field of the patent laws of the
United States . . . down to the first day of September, 1883.
Albert Henry Walker, Text-Book of the Patent Laws of the United States
of America (1883), at iii-iv. These two years of concentrated effort
produced a solid treatise that endured in highly serviceable form until
well into the 20th century.
6. Carl Moy, Moy’s Walker on Patents, 4th Ed. (2003) and supplements.
7. Chisum, Sources of Prior Art in Patent Law, supra note 4.
8. What other case do you know of that introduces the
hapless reader to both the intricacies of pre-1984 inventive entity law
and such wonders of textile machinery technology as the “doffer plenum”
and the “lickerin plenum”? Truly, a case only a patent wonk could love.
9. In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 178 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
10. Chisum, Sources of Prior Art in Patent Law, supra note 4, at 18.
11.  And of all the great treatises, in fact:
If one judges by the great treatises of the past – Coke, Blackstone,
Kent and the more modern Williston and Wigmore treatises – the sound
objective of a treatise is to inject a guiding principle into the
subject or to attempt to analyze the existing thinking and to classify
the case material in terms of guiding principles or objectives of the
law. Once such a principle is asserted or deduced it can then be applied
to any fact situation by the authors or lawyers for solution of as yet
undecided matters. The author, accordingly, uses the particular as
illustrations of application of the general and he rejects as unsound
that which he cannot explain within his theory or principle.
Allison Dunham, Book Review: Nichols’ The Law Of Eminent Domain, Third Edition, 60 Yale L.J. 749, 751 (1951).

04/07/2014

News

  • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information
    • Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Identity Resources
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
    • Media Release Form
  • Law School Images »
Berkeley Law
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2022 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.

Notice – Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols