Can a secret patent be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)?
No, a secret patent cannot be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b). The MPEP 2126 states: “Even if a patent grants an exclusionary right (is enforceable), it is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) if it…
Read MoreCan an inventor’s secret intent to experiment prevent a statutory bar?
No, an inventor’s secret intent to experiment is not sufficient to prevent a statutory bar. The MPEP 2133.03(e)(2) cites the case of Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., stating: “Evidence of the inventor’s secretly held belief that the units were not durable and may not be satisfactory for consumers was not sufficient, alone,…
Read MoreCan a secret commercial use be considered a “public use” for patent purposes?
Yes, a secret commercial use can be considered a “public use” for patent purposes. The MPEP 2152.02(c) states: “[A] secret or confidential use by an inventor or someone working with the inventor, which use is commercial in character, is considered a public use even though no member of the public viewed the use.” This interpretation…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) treat secret commercial use or sale?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), secret commercial use or sale can still qualify as prior art, similar to pre-AIA law. The Supreme Court clarified this in the Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. case. As stated in the MPEP: “In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d…
Read MoreHow does secret commercial use affect patentability?
Secret commercial use of an invention can significantly impact patentability. According to MPEP 2133.03(a): “Secret use is use by the inventor or by persons under the inventor’s control that is not visible to the public. Secret use may be commercial use or non-commercial use.” Key points about secret commercial use: It can trigger the one-year…
Read MoreHow does the AIA treat secret commercial use compared to pre-AIA law?
The treatment of secret commercial use under the AIA differs significantly from pre-AIA law. Under pre-AIA law, secret commercial use by the inventor could bar patentability. The MPEP states: “[A]n inventor’s own prior commercial use, albeit kept secret, may constitute a public use or sale under [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.] 102(b), barring him from obtaining a…
Read MoreCan secret commercial activity be considered “on sale” under AIA?
Yes, secret commercial activity can be considered “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). The MPEP references the Supreme Court decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., stating: “[T]he Supreme Court ‘determine[d] that Congress did not alter the meaning of ‘on sale’ when it enacted the AIA, [and held] that an inventor’s…
Read MoreWhat is the secondary purpose of the definiteness requirement in patent claims?
The secondary purpose of the definiteness requirement in patent claims is related to assessing the inventor’s conception of the invention and meeting patentability criteria. The MPEP states: “A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention so that it can be determined whether…
Read MoreWhat are secondary considerations in patent law?
Secondary considerations, also known as objective indicia of non-obviousness, are factors considered in patent law when evaluating the non-obviousness of an invention. These factors can include unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. However, it’s important to note that secondary considerations are not applicable to all types of patent rejections.…
Read MoreWhat are secondary considerations in obviousness analysis?
What are secondary considerations in obviousness analysis? Secondary considerations, also known as objective evidence of nonobviousness, are factors that can provide evidence against an obviousness rejection in patent examination. According to MPEP 2141: “The examiner should consider all of the evidence in the record, including any objective indicia of nonobviousness presented by applicant.” Common types…
Read More