article thumbnail

Public use == “accessible to the public.”

Patently-O

” The invention was not yet “ready for patenting” and therefore its public use was not disqualifying. .” ” The invention was not yet “ready for patenting” and therefore its public use was not disqualifying. It was also pitched to a potential acquirer. Microsoft Corp. ,

article thumbnail

“Prior public use”: an effective ground for opposition against the grant of a European patent

Garrigues Blog

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Printed Publication: Documents Made Available only to Customers

Patently-O

A new petition asks the court to examine the phrase again and help define when a document crosses the publication threshold. A new petition asks the court to examine the phrase again and help define when a document crosses the publication threshold. Centripetal Networks, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc. , 869, 877 (Fed.

article thumbnail

How Clinical Trials Affect Patentability In US And Europe

IP Law 360

and European patent decisions — concerning the effect of disclosures in clinical trials on the patentability of products — offers guidance on good practice for companies dealing with public use issues and prior art documents in these commercially important jurisdictions, say lawyers at Finnegan. A comparison of recent U.S.

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Key Points from the USPTO’s New Guidance on AI Use

IP Intelligence

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, in Intellectual Property (IP) practices involving documents filed at the USPTO. AI also cannot hold a USPTO account or independently access a practitioner’s account.

article thumbnail

Functional Medical Device Demonstrated at Trade Show Trigged On Sale Bar of pre-AIA 102(b)

LexBlog IP

9,186,208 on surgical devices for a procedure called endometrial ablation were anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § The Federal Circuit then pointed out that at the time of the public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” § 102(b).

article thumbnail

Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

The IPKat

The High Court dealt with the royalty payments, costs, confidentiality of certain documents after trial, and permission to appeal. Annsley explored the consequentials hearing (which takes place after the judgement is given) to the aforementioned royalties dispute between Oxford and the student inventor.