Does the inventor’s consent matter for the on-sale bar?
No, the inventor’s consent is not required for a sale to trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states: If the invention was placed on sale by a third party who obtained the invention from the inventor, a patent is barred even if the inventor did not consent to the sale…
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 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 factors do courts consider in determining if an invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation?
Courts consider several factors to determine if a claimed invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4), these factors include: “(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period,…
Read MoreCan experimental use negate the on-sale bar?
While experimental use can potentially negate the on-sale bar, it becomes increasingly difficult to prove as commercial exploitation increases. The MPEP states: “As the degree of commercial exploitation in public use or sale activity increases, the burden on an applicant to establish clear and convincing evidence of experimental activity with respect to a public use…
Read MoreWhat is the “experimental use” exception in patent law?
What is the “experimental use” exception in patent law? The “experimental use” exception in patent law refers to a provision that allows inventors to test and refine their inventions without triggering the on-sale bar or public use bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(e), “If an inventor’s publicly disclosed activity is merely for the purpose of experiment,…
Read MoreWhat is the experimental use doctrine in patent law?
The experimental use doctrine determines whether an inventor’s activity prior to filing a patent application was primarily for experimentation or for commercial purposes. According to the MPEP, “The question posed by the experimental use doctrine is ‘whether the primary purpose of the inventor at the time of the sale, as determined from an objective evaluation…
Read MoreHow does customer awareness affect experimental use claims?
Customer awareness is a crucial factor in establishing experimental use. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(2): “Under such circumstances, the customer at a minimum must be made aware of the experimentation.” This means that if an inventor claims experimental use, they must provide evidence that customers were informed about the experimental nature of the product or process.…
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 More