On-sale bar cannot be avoided by experimentation conducted by patentee's customer

In a decision Thursday, the Federal Circuit provided additional guidance on the on-sale bar of § 102(b).  In the case, the patentee developed a series of prototypes that were then sold to its customer, who then experimented with the prototypes and requested modifications to the prototypes.  The prototypes were also accompanied by offers to sell production models of the prototypes.  The court was clear in that the experimental use exception only concerns the actions of the inventors and their agents, not another party doing experimental testing for a particular purpose.  As a result, despite the fact that the customer was experimenting with the prototypes, that experimentation could not negate the on-sale bar of § 102(b).

Two of the panel's three judges also filed a concurring opinion.  In that opinion, Judges Prost and Dyk "point out the confusion" in Federal Circuit law when it comes to the interaction between experimental use and the on-sale bar.  While this case is not the proper vehicle, it's safe to add this issue to the list of near-future en banc issues for the court.

More detail of Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc. after the jump.

[More]

Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction

In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated in part a district court's claim construction of a several terms as well as its decision to find no infringement of patents owned by Honeywell.  The court did, however, affirm the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the several withdrawn claims and the decision that Honeywell's pre-critical date activities were not barring sales or public uses under § 102(b).

More details of Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp. after the jump.

[More]

Dippin' Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation

Dippin' Dots

What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable for a Walker Process antitrust claim by an infringement defendant. This is possible based on the differing standards of proof required by the infringement defendant, as explained by the Federal Circuit in the case. While both inequitable conduct and a Walker Process antitrust claim require proof that the patent holder either misrepresented or failed to disclose to the patent office something material to patentability and that it was done with intent to deceive. However, if evidence of one is scant, an inequitable conduct claim can still be proven if evidence of the other is strong; not so with a Walker Process claim. More details of the case after the jump.

 

[More]

Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar

In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the issue of determining when an invention is on sale within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A claimed invention is considered to be on sale under § 102(b) if the invention is sold or offered for sale more than one year before the filing date of the patent application. If the applicant files a patent application after this bar date, the invention is then considered donated to the public domain. The Federal Circuit stated that the purpose of the on sale bar is to "preclude attempts by the inventor or his assignee to profit from commercial use of an invention more than a year before an application for [a] patent is filed."

While discussing the on sale bar the Federal Circuit reviewed the two part test established by the Supreme Court in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998). The Federal Circuit reiterated that "first, the product must be the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale" and that "second, the invention must be ready for patenting." The Federal Circuit went further to then state that there are two alternative methods of showing that a product has been a subject of a commercial sale. The first method is to show that the patentee made a commercial offer to perform the patented method before the critical bar date (even if the performance is to occur after the critical date). The second method is for the alleged infringer to demonstrate that before the critical date the patentee actually performed the patented method for a promise of future compensation.

In deciding the specific case at hand, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further litigation as the Federal Circuit found the established record was insufficient to determine whether the patented process was sold or offered for sale before the critical date.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.

BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.8.001.