Monthly Minute | Commercialization of an Invention
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - SANHO CORP. v. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC. [OPINION] (2023-1336, 7/31/24) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll) - Dyk, J. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision...more
In part 1 of this series, I introduced the “on sale bar” and described how a commercial sale or offer for sale can negate patentability, according to the doctrine the Supreme Court established in Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc....more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1640, -1641 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) - Our case of the week has a little bit for everyone, including lost profits, reasonable royalties,...more
Arguably, no other provision of the America Invents Act (AIA) is more important than 35 U.S.C. § 102. It defines what activities preclude patentability and what documents are available as prior art. Applications having an...more
In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
Services play a large role in today’s economy, and it is important to be mindful of how certain pitfalls that apply to product-based intellectual property rights also apply to method or process-based intellectual property...more
Squib of Holding and Key Implication: The United States Supreme Court, in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., held on January 22, 2019 that "a commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep...more
On January 22, the Supreme Court clarified an important issue of patent law that had been left open since the enactment of the America Invents Act several years ago. ...more
In a widely-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the scope of the on-sale bar to patentability. The unanimous decision, authored by Justice Thomas, held...more
The U.S. Supreme Court may soon resolve an issue that has sparked much debate since the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act — namely, whether under the AIA, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party...more
Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys Justin Krieger and Nicki Kennedy recently spoke at the Kilpatrick Townsend Intellectual Property Seminars on the topic of “Helsinn v. Teva: The Status of Secret Prior Art and the On-Sale Bar.” ...more
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the question of whether, under the America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as...more
On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, No. 17-1229. In Helsinn, the Federal Circuit considered whether the America...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
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...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
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit found that a publicly-announced “Supply and Purchase” agreement triggered the on-sale bar under pre-AIA 35 USC § 102(b) and under AIA 35 USC §...more
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of...more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) did not change the meaning of the on-sale bar...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