Filewrapper®

Category: On sale bar


Supreme Court Rules: Sale of Invention can Prevent Patenting
January 24, 2019
Post by Patricia A. Sweeney - Of Counsel
Following passage of the America Invents Act, questions arose as to whether a secret sale by the inventor more than one year before patenting was prior art under section 102(a)(1) that would prohibit patenting of the invention. The language of the statute provides an invention cannot be patented if “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the publicbefore the effective filing date of the claime.......
Read More


Protecting Your Nanotechnology Inventions - Part 4: Don’t Forget About Trade Secret Protection
December 31, 2018
Post by Jonathan L. Kennedy
When you have a new invention, the right question to ask at the outset is whether you want to consider patenting it. This is important because many common activities in research and commercialization can create a bar to patent protection or at least start a one-year clock by which a patent must be filed. Some of these common activities include presenting or publishing on the technology, testing the techn.......
Read More


Is your Confidential Sale Prior Art Against You? The Supreme Court has Decided to Weigh In.
June 26, 2018
Post by Patricia A. Sweeney - Of Counsel
You have a new idea and have found an interested buyer. If you sell your product or process to the buyer prior to filing a patent application, have you created your own prior art? If it is prior art, it would bar a later filed patent under 35 USC §102. Prior to the change in patent law that moved from first to invent to first to file for a patent application, such a sale would be a bar to patenting. Howe.......
Read More


Supplier's Agreement to Manufacture May Trigger On-Sale Bar
August 16, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
In an Opinion on August 14, 2013 (Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.), the Federal Circuit ruled that the on-sale bar was triggered when a purchase order for slow cookers by patentee Hamilton Beach was confirmed by its supplier. The Court stated that Hamilton Beach’s transaction with its supplier was an offer for sale of a product that anticipated the asserted claims and that the inventio.......
Read More


U.S. Supreme Court Addresses Jurisdiction In Patent Related Case
February 21, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Read More


Ninth Circuit: Sufficient evidence of fraud to defeat summary judgment on Walker Process claim
March 27, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the antitrust implications of so-called "reverse payments" between brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies. A health care provider brought suit against the two companies, alleging their agreement to delay the introduction of a generic pharmaceutical (which involved payment to the generic manufacturer of $4.5 million per month) was a violation of.......
Read More


Today's lesson for litigators: make sure you present all your arguments to the district court
August 21, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that two patents were invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The inventor filed a declaration during prosecution that the invention was reduced to practice before the critical date of the patents, and thereafter sold the claimed method, also before the critical date. The post-reduction to practice sales could n.......
Read More


On-sale bar cannot be avoided by experimentation conducted by patentee's customer
February 25, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
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 tha.......
Read More


Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction
May 26, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
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 u.......
Read More


Dippin' Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation
February 09, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
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 possib.......
Read More


Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar
December 18, 2006
Post by Blog Staff
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 th.......
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

Captcha Image