article thumbnail

Guest Post by Profs. Masur & Ouellette: Public Use Without the Public Using

Patently-O

What is it that makes a usepublic” 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?

article thumbnail

Confidentiality restrictions around clinical trials and prior public use (T 0670/20)

The IPKat

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Holds Surgical Patent Anticipated Under Pre-AIA 35 USC102b Public Use

JD Supra Law

9,186,208 (the ’208 Patent) are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § This is an appeal from a District of Delaware summary judgment order that held that the asserted claims of U.S. By: Allen & Overy LLP

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.

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

Federal Circuit Clarifies Public Use Bar Requirements in Win for Hologic Against Minerva

IP Watchdog

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential opinion clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being “in public use” for purposes of the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) public use bar under 35 USC 102(b).

article thumbnail

No Handling Necessary: Industry Demo Was A Public Use: Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 2023 WL 1999900 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023)

JD Supra Law

Minerva”) had engaged in an invalidating public use more than one year before its patent filing. . On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a summary judgment ruling that, by merely showcasing an embodying device at an industry event (the “Event”), Minerva Surgical, Inc. By: Irwin IP LLP