On March 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,[1] which deals with many areas in patents, including foreign applications, priority claims, 35 U.S.C. §103, 35 U.S.C. §112, and pre-AIA treatment for examination. This case was heard before a panel composing of Judges Newman, …
Category: 102
35 U.S. Code § 102 – Conditions for patentability; novelty.
(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) Exceptions.—
(1)Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2)Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(c)Common Ownership Under Joint Research Agreements.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if—
(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—
(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.
Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Not Bound by Fed Circuit Precedent
On March 1, 2018, in a fairly convoluted and highly fractured decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was not bound to collateral estoppel principles which form a long line of Fed Circuit case precedence. That case is Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, …
Fed Circuit Watch: Distribution Agreement Is Offer for Sale for On-Sale Bar Analysis
On February 6, 2018, an interesting ruling was handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.,[1] the Fed Circuit held that a distribution agreement could constitute an on-sale bar for purposes of §102 invalidation. This appeal is a further remand of an earlier en …
Fed Circuit Watch: Improved Smartphone Display Interface Found Patent-Eligible
On January 25, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled claims directed to improved display interface for cell phones was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 in Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc.[1] This case represents the second precedential one of the year where claims have been found patent-eligible by a …
Fed Circuit Watch: Helsinn Redux: En Banc Denied
On January 16, 2018, in a non-precedential per curiam order (the order was not published, but was made available from our colleagues at the Patently-O blog), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order denying Helsinn’s petition for rehearing and en banc rehearing. Judge O’Malley, a member of the original …
Fed Circuit Watch: Helsinn and the On-Sale Bar
By Brent T. Yonehara On May 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2016-1284, 2016-1787 (Fed. Cir. 2017), holding that the on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) invalidated four patents held by Helsinn, for treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The patents …