Art Confidentiality Public Use 
The IPKat
JANUARY 31, 2023
The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 0670/20 considered whether patients in a clinical trial were under conditions of confidentiality. The question became whether the patients could be considered members of the public, and whether their participation in the clinical trial therefore constituted prior public use of the formulation.
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 26, 2023
What is it that makes a use “public” for purposes of the public use bar? Does it matter whether the person doing the using is a member of the public, as opposed to the inventor? Or does it matter whether the use is itself in public, as opposed to taking place in secret behind closed doors?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Garrigues Blog
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
This opposition procedure for European patents is particularly useful when the patent in question is hindering our commercial interests and we have adequate reasons to revoke its registration. One of the most effective ways of obtaining the revocation is to prove “prior public use”. We look at what this consists of below.
The IPKat
JANUARY 16, 2025
The Opponent, Avl List GmbH, challenged the patent's validity based on several grounds, including prior public use as evidenced by a user manual describing the invention. A more nuanced standard to the assessment of evidence for prior use? Both parties appealed the OD decision.
Patently-O
AUGUST 5, 2024
The basic holding is that the 102(a)(2)/(b)(2) safe harbor triggered by an inventor’s pre-filing “public disclosure” of the invention requires that the invention be made “reasonably available to the public.” ” Neither public uses nor private sales satisfy this requirement.
Larson & Larson
FEBRUARY 13, 2021
Often, the reason that the patent office will cite for rejecting an application is the presence of prior art. This makes the term ‘prior art’ an important concept for inventors to understand. What is Prior Art? You may have heard the term ‘prior art’ before in the context of patents.
Patently-O
AUGUST 13, 2021
The court relied upon additional facts not found in the question presented–noting that the document in question was distributed to hundreds of customers over a span of years and without any confidentiality restrictions; and that product advertisements were designed to attract persons of skill in the art. 102(a)(1).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
134 
Let's personalize your content