Monthly Minute | Commercialization of an Invention
In Celanese Int’l Corp. v. ITC, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the on-sale bar such that the sale of a product made using a secret process would no longer invalidate later-sought...more
On March 4, the Federal Circuit, heard oral arguments for Celanese Int’l. v ITC, 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. 2024), a case that may reshape the dynamics between trade secrets and patent rights....more
A medical device patentee has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to save his design patent, related to an introducer sheath handle, from invalidity based on application of the “on-sale” bar, which prohibits patenting an invention...more
In Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a catheter insertion design patent was invalid because the claimed design was offered for sale more than a year before the design patent application was...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision regarding experimental use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the application of enhanced damages based on an allegedly flawed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment of no invalidity under the on-sale bar, finding that the completeness of relevant commercial sale terms, including multiple purchase...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision, Junker v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 2021-1649 (Feb. 10, 2022), serves as a warning to prospective filers that making pre-filing offers for sale, or engaging in discussions for future sales,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that three patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar but remanded two other patent claims for trial, explaining that the district court...more
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
There is some confusion about what constitutes an “on-sale bar” in patent law. The on-sale bar, set forth in 35 U.S.C §102, prohibits a patent if the invention sought to be patented was offered for sale or sold more than one...more
Recent court decisions have confirmed that inventors run the risk of destroying their patent rights in the U.S. and abroad if they publicize their inventions or put them “on sale” before applying for a patent....more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
In Nichia the Circuit affirms the denial of a permanent injunction because Nichia failed to prove irreparable injury. In RecogniCorp the panel throws out as not being directed to patentable subject matter claims directed to...more
In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit recently interpreted the scope of the “on sale” bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of the America Invents Act (AIA). In Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the court...more
On May 1st, the Federal Circuit ruled that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the statutory meaning of “on sale” where the existence of a sale was publicly announced prior to patenting, even if the sale did not...more
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit provided much-anticipated guidance on the scope of the America Invents Act’s “on-sale” bar provision. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Nos. 2016-1284, 2016-1787...more
In an en banc decision issued in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that in order for a commercial transaction to trigger the on-sale bar of § 35 USC 102(b), it must “bear the general...more
An invention cannot be patented if it was ready for patenting and was subject to a commercial offer for sale more than one year before the application was filed. This so-called “on-sale bar” can also be used to invalidate a...more
On July 11, 2016, a unanimous Federal Circuit en banc affirmed that The Medicines Company’s (“TMC”) use of third-party contract manufacturing services did not invalidate U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 (the...more
Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar - The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The...more
The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The America-Invents-Act (AIA), which altered the language in the statutes that apply to...more
Pursuant to Section 102 of the Patent Act, the “on-sale” bar can invalidate a patent when the claimed invention has been the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale, and the invention is ready for patenting. Prior to...more
On May 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit determined that Merck’s crystalline calcium salt of tetrahydrofolic acid (“MTHF”) had been the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and held Merck’s MTHF claim in U.S. Patent No....more
Addressing antitrust issues in connection with a dismissed patent infringement lawsuit, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment dismissing antitrust and malicious prosecution...more