Friday, February 22, 2008

On-sale bar found in Atlanta Attachment

The case worked through Pfaff v. Wells Elecs, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 199 S.Ct. 304, 311-12 (1998) [An invention is barred under 102(b) when it was both the subject of a commercial offer for sale before the critical date and ready for patenting at the time of the offer. ]

Relevant law included: An invention is reduced to practice when it works for its intended
purpose. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 997 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). An invention
is said to work for its intended purpose when there is a demonstration of its workability
or utility. Id. (citing Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

The concurring opinion of Judge Prost, joined by Judge Dyk, began: I write separately, however, to
point out the confusion in our caselaw regarding the applicability of the experimental use
doctrine to the two prong test for the on-sale bar.


Post a Comment

<< Home