How does commercial exploitation affect the public use and on sale bars?
Commercial exploitation is a significant factor in determining whether an invention has been in public use or on sale under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Even if an inventor claims experimental use, evidence of commercial exploitation can negate this defense and trigger the statutory bars. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(1): “As the degree of commercial exploitation…
Read MoreWhat are the key indicators of commercial exploitation in patent law?
The MPEP outlines several activities that patent examiners should consider as indicators of commercial exploitation. These include: Preparation of commercial documents (e.g., orders, invoices, receipts) Creation and distribution of price lists and quotations Display of samples to potential customers Demonstration of models or prototypes, especially at trade conventions Use of an invention where an admission…
Read MoreWhat factors indicate commercial exploitation in patent law?
The MPEP outlines several factors that can indicate commercial exploitation, which may negate the experimental use exception. These include: Preparation of commercial documents (orders, invoices, receipts) Preparation and distribution of price lists and quotations Display of samples to potential customers Demonstration of models or prototypes, especially at trade conventions Charging admission fees for use of…
Read MoreHow does commercial exploitation affect experimental use in patent law?
How does commercial exploitation affect experimental use in patent law? Commercial exploitation can significantly impact whether an activity qualifies as experimental use in patent law. MPEP 2133.03(e) emphasizes that “The experimental use exception does not include market testing where the inventor is attempting to gauge consumer demand for his claimed invention.” This means that activities…
Read MoreHow does commercial availability affect plant patent prior art?
Commercial availability of plant materials can significantly impact what constitutes enabling prior art for plant patents. The MPEP 2121.03 provides an example in the case of Ex parte Thomson: “Seeds were commercially available more than 1 year prior to applicant’s filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art could grow the claimed cotton cultivar…
Read MoreHow much collaboration is required for joint inventorship?
While joint inventors don’t need to work together physically or simultaneously, there must be some level of collaboration or connection. The MPEP cites the case Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co., which states: “For persons to be joint inventors under Section 116, there must be some element of joint behavior, such as collaboration…
Read MoreHow does claim construction differ in interference proceedings compared to written description evaluations?
In interference proceedings, claim construction differs from written description evaluations in a crucial way. The MPEP 2301.03 explains: “Every claim must be construed in light of the application in which it appears for purpose of evaluating whether there is interfering subject matter, unlike when evaluating whether copied claims comply with the written description requirement where…
Read MoreHow are claims construed when copied from another application or patent in an interference?
When an applicant copies a claim from another application or patent to provoke an interference, the construction of these claims follows a specific rule. According to MPEP 2304.02(d): “When an applicant copies a claim from another application or patent, the applicant’s claims are construed in view of the originating specification when the other party challenges…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between a chemical composition and its properties in patent law?
In patent law, a chemical composition and its properties are considered inseparable. This principle is outlined in MPEP 2112.01(II): “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The MPEP further explains: “A chemical composition and its properties are…
Read MoreHow does the requirement for certified translations affect interference proceedings?
The requirement for certified translations can significantly impact interference proceedings. MPEP 2304.01(c) references specific regulations related to interference proceedings: “See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).” These regulations stipulate that in interference proceedings, a certified translation of the foreign priority document must be provided. The MPEP further clarifies: “Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of…
Read More