SOUTHERN SNOW MANUFACTURING v. SNOWIZARD HOLDINGS (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Unassembled components still trigger on-sale bar when offered for sale

by Steve Driskill | Jun 30, 2014 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art

An offer for sale of the necessary components of the claimed invention triggers an on-sale bar even if the components require some assembly in order for the claimed invention to be put into operation.  “The law only requires that the invention be ‘ready for...

SUFFOLK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. AOL INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Internet forum postings as prior art

by Steve Driskill | May 27, 2014 | [sub] printed publications, Prior Art

While a printed publication must be sufficiently disseminated to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it “need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Thus, as here, even a non-indexed and...

SOLVAY, S.A. v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Invention conceived by a foreign inventor and reduced to practice in the U.S. as prior art under § 102(g)(2)

by Steve Driskill | Feb 12, 2014 | [sub] invention by another, Prior Art

The doctrine of inurement, defining when the activities of others inure to the benefit of an inventor, does not require that the prior inventor under § 102(g)(2) expressly request or direct a non-inventor reducing the invention to practice to perform the reductive...

IN RE ENHANCED SECURITY RESEARCH LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Incomplete copies of printed publications as prior art

by Steve Driskill | Jan 13, 2014 | [sub] printed publications, Prior Art

The fact that a printed publication may be incomplete (e.g., missing pages) does not automatically exclude it from being applied as prior art without a showing that the missing sections might “plausibly” teach away from the claimed invention. It is not plausible to...

PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Invalidating public use from a marketing campaign

by Steve Driskill | Sep 12, 2013 | [sub] public use, Prior Art

An invalidating public use need not be the intended use of the invention disclosed or claimed in the patent. If the invention is fully disclosed to the public without restriction, a public use will be deemed to have occurred. Background / Facts: The patents-in-suit...

HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Supplier contracts as an on-sale bar

by Steve Driskill | Aug 14, 2013 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art

There is no “supplier exception” to the on-sale bar. It is of no consequence that a “commercial offer for sale” is made by the patentee’s own supplier or that it was made to the patentee itself. A patent application or at least provisional application should be filed...