Monthly Minute | Commercialization of an Invention
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed an ITC holding that the AIA’s § 102 on-sale bar applies to the sale of a product made according to a secret process when that sale occurs more than one year before the patent’s effective...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using...more
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 August 12, 2024, the Federal Circuit published its decision in Celanese International Corp. et al. v. International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit concluded that, under the America Invents Act (AIA), patent claims...more
You have invented a process for manufacturing a high-potency artificial sweetener. You are now faced with a critical business decision: how do you protect your intellectual property? You could keep your process a closely...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
The America Invents Act ("AIA") bars a person from obtaining a patent when the “claimed invention” had been “on sale” more than one year before the filing date of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Acesulfame potassium...more
As I described in the first two parts of this series, there are a number of ways in which the “on sale” bar can cost the unwitting inventor dearly. Hence, lastly, I would like to highlight some of the exceptions that can be...more
I. Minerva Surgical v. Hologic: Background - The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion earlier this year in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. clarifying the “in public...more
With another busy week of arguments last week, the Federal Circuit took a break from issuing precedential decisions. But it still pushed out several non-precedential decisions along with some quick affirmances without...more
No better way to start Valentine’s Day week than to think about a different way for communicating. But as this week’s case of the week shows, what you say and how you say it can matter. Check out our usual weekly statistics...more
Once a month, we cover an interesting topic. This month, senior associates Richard Goldstucker and Megan Bussey discuss the commercialization of an invention and provide an overview of the "on-sale bar" provision....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
As we close out another calendar year, we look back at the top legal developments of 2019 that could influence the market for biologics and biosimilars. These five major court decisions will likely impact the legal strategy...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
Have you or your company ever engaged with anyone else to sell novel products before filing a patent application or engaged someone to manufacture products using novel methods before filing a patent application? If so, then...more
Before enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, it was understood that an inventor’s secret commercialization of an invention through sale or use can operate like prior art against that inventor’s subsequent patent...more
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (Jan. 22, 2019)....more
Addressing pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the public-use and on-sale bars did not apply to the claimed surgical method because pre-critical-date...more
Addressing whether the on-sale bar of America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(a)(1) applies to confidential sales where specific details are not made public, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the post-AIA...more
If the term "happy hour" in this article's title caught your attention, you may be disappointed by what comes next. This article is actually about limitations on patent protection, which I would argue is just as...more
Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) is the maker of certain treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea (the “Palonosetron Products”). During the development process, Helsinn entered into two third party agreements for distribution...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, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, holding that under § 102(a), as amended by the American Invents Act (“AIA”), an inventor’s sale of an invention to...more