Patent Law FAQ

Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:

If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics. (MPEP 2133.03(c))

This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.

To learn more:

• on-sale bar
• inherent characteristics
• product sales
• patent invalidity
• Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:

If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics. (MPEP 2133.03(c))

This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.

To learn more:

• on-sale bar
• inherent characteristics
• product sales
• patent invalidity
• Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:

If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics. (MPEP 2133.03(c))

This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.

To learn more:

• on-sale bar
• inherent characteristics
• product sales
• patent invalidity
• Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

What are the consequences of failing to submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)?

Failing to submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) can have serious consequences for patent applicants. According to MPEP 609:

“The failure to timely file an Information Disclosure Statement may result in the application being abandoned or may adversely affect the validity of the patent.”

Specifically:

• The application may be abandoned if the IDS is not filed within the time periods specified in 37 CFR 1.97.
• If a patent is granted, it may be invalidated if it’s later discovered that material information was intentionally withheld from the USPTO during prosecution.
• The applicant may be accused of inequitable conduct, which can render the entire patent unenforceable.

It’s crucial for applicants to diligently submit all known material information to the USPTO through proper IDS filings to avoid these potential issues.

To learn more:

• IDS consequences
• patent abandonment
• patent invalidity
• inequitable conduct

Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:

If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics. (MPEP 2133.03(c))

This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.

To learn more:

• on-sale bar
• inherent characteristics
• product sales
• patent invalidity
• Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

What are the consequences of failing to submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)?

Failing to submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) can have serious consequences for patent applicants. According to MPEP 609:

“The failure to timely file an Information Disclosure Statement may result in the application being abandoned or may adversely affect the validity of the patent.”

Specifically:

• The application may be abandoned if the IDS is not filed within the time periods specified in 37 CFR 1.97.
• If a patent is granted, it may be invalidated if it’s later discovered that material information was intentionally withheld from the USPTO during prosecution.
• The applicant may be accused of inequitable conduct, which can render the entire patent unenforceable.

It’s crucial for applicants to diligently submit all known material information to the USPTO through proper IDS filings to avoid these potential issues.

To learn more:

• IDS consequences
• patent abandonment
• patent invalidity
• inequitable conduct