Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) plays a crucial role in determining whether certain disclosures qualify as prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04:
“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).”
This means that 102(b) provides exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 102(a). These exceptions can include:
- Disclosures made by the inventor or joint inventor
- Disclosures that appeared in applications and patents having a common assignee or inventor
- Disclosures made after public disclosure by the inventor
Understanding these exceptions is crucial for inventors and patent practitioners in determining the novelty and patentability of an invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(B) – "On Sale" (1)
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
MPEP 2152.04 – The Meaning Of "Disclosure" (1)
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) plays a crucial role in determining whether certain disclosures qualify as prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04:
“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).”
This means that 102(b) provides exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 102(a). These exceptions can include:
- Disclosures made by the inventor or joint inventor
- Disclosures that appeared in applications and patents having a common assignee or inventor
- Disclosures made after public disclosure by the inventor
Understanding these exceptions is crucial for inventors and patent practitioners in determining the novelty and patentability of an invention.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) plays a crucial role in determining whether certain disclosures qualify as prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04:
“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).”
This means that 102(b) provides exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 102(a). These exceptions can include:
- Disclosures made by the inventor or joint inventor
- Disclosures that appeared in applications and patents having a common assignee or inventor
- Disclosures made after public disclosure by the inventor
Understanding these exceptions is crucial for inventors and patent practitioners in determining the novelty and patentability of an invention.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) plays a crucial role in determining whether certain disclosures qualify as prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04:
“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).”
This means that 102(b) provides exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 102(a). These exceptions can include:
- Disclosures made by the inventor or joint inventor
- Disclosures that appeared in applications and patents having a common assignee or inventor
- Disclosures made after public disclosure by the inventor
Understanding these exceptions is crucial for inventors and patent practitioners in determining the novelty and patentability of an invention.
To learn more: