Remove 2011 Remove Invention Remove Public Use
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Narrows AIA Grace Period: Public Disclosure Must Make Invention ‘Reasonably Available’

Patently-O

Kaijet highlights the narrowness of the pre-filing grace period (safe harbor) provision under the America Invents Act (AIA) and serves as a reminder that there are a number of patents that would have been valid under the pre-AIA patent system may no longer be valid under the current law. HyperDrive apparently embodies the claimed invention.

Invention 111
article thumbnail

Public use == “accessible to the public.”

Patently-O

Minerva’s ‘208 patent claims a device for endometrial ablation and includes a 2011 priority filing date. The application was filed in 2011, but back in 2009 Minerva had been doing testing on a prototype “Aurora device” that included inner/outer frames made of two different types of steel. 3d 1243 (Fed.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Statutory Text vs. Precedent: Analyzing the AIA’s On-Sale Bar for Secret Processes in Celanese v. ITC

Patently-O

patent law over the past several decades, the America Invents Act of 2011 was clearly the most dramatic rewriting of the law since 1952. The fundamental change to Section 102 was the transition from first-to-invent to first-to-file. Although Congress has repeatedly tinkered with U.S. 35 U.S.C.

article thumbnail

The Inventive Entity and Prior Publication by Another

Patently-O

a) the invention was … patented or described in a printed publication … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or. (b) b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication … more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or.

article thumbnail

Post-IPR Estoppel: Printed Publication vs. Actual Product Shown in the Publication

Patently-O

As is usual these days, ELCO turned-around and filed an inter partes review petition — challenging the patent’s validity based upon a 2011 product catalog (printed publication) that had featured the Hatteras lighting product. ” 35 U.S.C. ” Here, the district court found substantive, germane differences.