Confidentiality Information 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 patent claimed an apparatus for vehicle exhaust gas testing comprising an information processing unit connected to a display that could acquire and process running data during road tests. A more nuanced standard to the assessment of evidence for prior use? Both parties appealed the OD decision.
The IP Law Blog
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
This month the Federal Circuit decided a case involving whether the display of a flowering plant constitutes an invalidating prior public use. Attendees had no confidentiality obligations and “were not provided any gene or breeding information.” For example, in Motionless Keyboard Co. Microsoft Corp. ,
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. 333 (1881).
The IPKat
MAY 15, 2023
The Patentee argued that the GensuPen had only been given out as part of a trial under conditions of confidentiality ( Cf. The Board of Appeal agreed with the OD that the prior use had not been sufficiently proven. First, no background information was given about the mysterious Ms Simon.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
134 
Let's personalize your content