Can 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 MoreHow do courts weigh objective evidence against inventor testimony?
Courts typically give more weight to objective evidence than to inventor testimony when determining whether a use or sale was experimental. The MPEP 2133.03(e)(2) cites a recent case: “Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (The Federal Circuit relied on the objective…
Read MoreWhat constitutes objective evidence of experimental use?
Objective evidence of experimental use typically includes documentation and actions that demonstrate the inventor’s intent to experiment rather than commercialize the invention. While the MPEP 2133.03(e)(2) doesn’t provide an exhaustive list, it suggests that such evidence may include: Informing customers about the experimental nature of the product or process Maintaining control over the invention during…
Read MoreHow does inventor intent affect experimental use in patent law?
Inventor intent is crucial in determining whether an activity qualifies as experimental use. However, subjective intent alone is not sufficient. The MPEP states: “When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of intent in determining public use or on-sale bar?
The intent of the inventor is not sufficient alone to determine whether a public use or on-sale bar applies. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(2): “When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing…
Read MoreWhat is the burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections?
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”…
Read MoreHow are secondary considerations evaluated in design patent applications?
Secondary considerations, also known as objective evidence of nonobviousness, play an important role in evaluating design patent applications. The MPEP states: “Secondary considerations, such as commercial success and copying of the design by others, are relevant to the evaluation of obviousness of a design claim. Evidence of nonobviousness may be present at the time a…
Read MoreHow can an applicant rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for a design patent?
The MPEP outlines several ways an applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for a design patent: “Once a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut it, if possible, with objective evidence of nonobviousness.” The MPEP provides examples of such evidence: Commercial success Expert…
Read MoreWhat happens if there’s a lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness in a patent application?
The absence of objective evidence of nonobviousness in a patent application does not automatically result in a finding of obviousness. According to MPEP 716.01(a): “The lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness.” This statement, citing Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., indicates that the absence of such evidence is…
Read MoreWhat are the key factors in establishing long-felt need for a patent application?
Establishing long-felt need for a patent application requires consideration of three key factors: Persistent and recognized problem: There must be objective evidence that a recognized problem existed in the art for a long time without a solution. As stated in the MPEP, Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in…
Read More