What constitutes “substantial activity” in the U.S. for the on-sale bar under pre-AIA law?
The concept of “substantial activity” in the U.S. is crucial for determining if foreign sales can trigger the on-sale bar under pre-AIA law. While the MPEP doesn’t provide an exhaustive definition, it offers guidance: “‘On sale’ status can be found if substantial activity prefatory to a ‘sale’ occurs in the United States.” (MPEP 2133.03(d)) This…
Read MoreHow does the “on sale” bar apply to foreign activities under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)?
The application of the “on sale” bar to foreign activities under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is nuanced. Generally, it does not apply to activities entirely outside the U.S., but there are exceptions: 1. Foreign manufacture and delivery: “The ‘on sale’ bar does not generally apply where both manufacture and delivery occur in a foreign country.”…
Read MoreWhat does “in this country” mean in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)?
The phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) refers specifically to the United States and its territories. According to the MPEP: “The language ‘in this country’ in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and…
Read MoreCan foreign sales activities trigger the on-sale bar under pre-AIA law?
Yes, foreign sales activities can potentially trigger the on-sale bar under pre-AIA law, but with specific conditions. The MPEP 2133.03(d) provides guidance on this: 1. General rule: “The ‘on sale’ bar does not generally apply where both manufacture and delivery occur in a foreign country.” 2. Exceptions: “‘On sale’ status can be found if substantial…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp. case in pre-AIA patent law?
The case of CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979) is significant in pre-AIA patent law for its interpretation of the on-sale bar’s application to foreign activities. The MPEP 2133.03(d) cites this case to illustrate an important principle: “The same rationale applies to an offer by a…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between AIA and pre-AIA patent law regarding “in this country”?
The concept of “in this country” differs significantly between the America Invents Act (AIA) and pre-AIA patent law: Pre-AIA: The “in this country” requirement was explicitly stated in 35 U.S.C. 102(b), limiting the public use and on-sale bars to activities within the United States and its territories. AIA: The AIA removed the “in this country”…
Read MoreHow does the AIA change the territorial scope of prior art?
The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly changed the territorial scope of prior art compared to pre-AIA law. The MPEP 2133.03(d) notes: “This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note).” Key changes in the…
Read MoreHow does 35 U.S.C. 105 relate to the “in this country” requirement in pre-AIA patent law?
35 U.S.C. 105 is relevant to the “in this country” requirement in pre-AIA patent law as it expands the definition of U.S. territory for certain patent law purposes. The MPEP 2133.03(d) mentions this connection: “See also 35 U.S.C. 105.” 35 U.S.C. 105 states that inventions made, used, or sold in outer space on a “space…
Read More