3 rd party statutory bar activity

3rd party statutory bar activity Patent Law 3.4.08

Cleanup issues • Atlanta Attachment: on-sale or public use? • Apparently the former

Chisum on experimental use The better and prevailing view is that experimental use can indeed continue even after the invention has been completed and reduced to practice as that term is used in patent law.Unfortunately, many Federal Circuit decisions articulate the former, less-preferred position, to wit, that experimental use cannot extend beyond reduction to practice.This leads to considerable confusion.

§ 102. Novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented [etc]… more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or . . . .

§ 102. Novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was known or used by others … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication …, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent . . . .

When would a statutory bar invalidate, but not 102(a)?

When would a statutory bar invalidate, but not 102(a)? • When [1] a qualifying reference enters the prior art [2] after the applicant’s date of invention, but [3] more than 1 year prior to applicant’s filing date

Statutory Bars and 3rd party activity • Are the same policies implicated? • Look again to unique situations where only a statutory bar will invalidate the patent

Practicalities • Some 3rd party prior art may be difficult/expensive to find • Rarely during prosecution • Labor-intensive discovery • On sale, some public use; compare to “known or used [publicly]” under 102(a)

Novelty and the economics of search • Page 417 • How did defendants find out about prior art in Baxter and WL Gore? • Interference, Baxter • Public use (?) by Budd, WL Gore

Baxter • What category of section 102 prior art is at issue here?

Issues on appeal • Was Suaudeau & Ito’s use “public”? • Was it “experimental” – not yet completed? • Different standards for 3rd party experimentation, vs inventor’s own experimentation?

Holding “Suaudeau’s use was public, and it was not experimental in a manner that saves Cullis’ patent.” -- p. 572

Baxter International v. Cobe Labs, Inc. • Q: How is this case different from Rosaire? • A: They are similar in that the courts in both find public uses by third parties in circumstances where the use would be hard to discover by the applicant. There are two differences:

Distinguishing Rosaire • (2) Rosaire used the invention in the ordinary course of business. Here Suaudeau used the invention in a lab. It’s not clear that it was ever used in the ordinary course of a business (even accepting that research could be a business). • (1) Baxter is a statutory bar case. Thus, the prior public use cannot be defeated by proof of earlier invention; it creates problems for Ito’s patent application too.

Hypothetical • Q: Inventor conceives of a new widget on 1/1/2000. Thief steals the plans, builds the widget and, unknown to the inventor, sells a copy on 2/1/2000. The inventor meanwhile sells some prototypes to determine if the new widget works. She requires customers to report on the performance of the invention. The inventor is satisfied with the tests on 3/1/2001 and then files an application. Can she get a patent?

Hypothetical A: Probably not. Sales by thieves do start the one-year clock of 102(b) running. Evans Cooling Sys. v. General Motors Corp., 125 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here the inventor’s own sales were probably experimental, but the thief’s was not. Perhaps, however, the inventor could argue that the invention was not yet “ready for patenting” at the time of the thief’s sale.

Newman dissent • Opposes “secret prior art” • See Pitlick p 609 • 3rd party 102(b) art should be narrowly limited • “liberal” test of publicness • Consistent with policies?

W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc. • 1966: John Cropper of New Zealand develops a machine for producing stretched and unstretched PTFE thread seal tape. • 1967: Cropper sends a letter to a company in Massachusetts offering to sell his machine, describing its operation, and enclosing a photo. Nothing comes of that letter. “There is no evidence and no finding that the present inventions thereby became known or used in this country.”

Gore • 1968: Cropper sells his machine to Budd in US but requires Budd to keep the operation of the machine a secret, which Budd does. Budd uses the machine to produce seal tape. • May 21, 1970: Gore files a patent application on a process for stretching PTFE material that is similar to Cropper’s process.

W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc. • Q: Why doesn’t Gore have a novelty problem? • A: The process wasn’t publicly known, so it doesn’t qualify under 102(a). There’s no 102(e) issue. Cropper’s process could not be considered under 102(g)(2) because Cropper was concealing/suppressing the process.

Gore Q: Why isn’t Cropper’s 1967 letter an offer to sell? A: Probably because he was not offering to sell the process, only the machine. Moreover, as we know from his later activity with Budd, the sale of the machine would have been subject to a secrecy restriction. Q: Why isn’t Budd’s use of the machine a bar? A: Budd’s use of the machine is not a “public” use of the process because he kept the process secret.

Q: Could Cropper have applied for a U.S. patent in 1970? • A: No!!! “[A]n inventor’s own prior commercial use, albeit kept secret, may constitute a public use or sale under § 102(b), barring him from obtaining a patent.” Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, 148 F.3d 1368, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Also Pennock supports this rule.

Exp use in 3rd party cases?? “Suaudeau’s use was public, and it was not experimental in a manner that saves Cullis’ patent.” -- p. 572

3 rd party statutory bar activity