News & Analysis as of

Public Disclosure Patents Appeals

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Meaning of “Publicly Disclosed”

This decision emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B)....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2024

Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more

Knobbe Martens

A Private Sale Is Not Sufficient for Public Disclosure Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B)

Knobbe Martens on

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may...more

Buchalter

A Patent For A Formula Does Not Destroy Trade Secret Status So Long As The Patent Does Not Disclose The “Process” For Applying The...

Buchalter on

On November 20, 2019, the California Court of Appeal confirmed that a patent for a formula does not destroy a formula’s trade secret status so long as the patent does not disclose the process for applying the trade secret. ...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

California Appellate Court Rules Publication of Trade Secrets, Even Without Owner Consent, Eviscerates Protection

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

It is axiomatic that in order for information to be considered a trade secret, it must have been kept secret. But what if the trade secret is disclosed without the owner’s consent? Such was the issue in Intellisoft, Ltd. v....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - February 2019 #4

Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Appeal No. 2018-1028 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2019) In an appeal from a district court dismissal of a case seeking correction of inventorship, the Federal Circuit reversed...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Are Secret Sales Prior Art Under The AIA?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar under AIA

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

Jones Day

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss: Federal Circuit Interprets AIA's On-Sale Bar

Jones Day on

For more than 60 years, Section 102(b) of the Patent Act precluded patentability when the invention was "in public use or on sale in this country [for] more than one year" before the filing of a patent application. That...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide