Dennis Crouch's Patently-O: 1 new topics, including “Next Up: Lighting Ballast” |  |
| Posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:37 AM PST In Teva v Sandoz, the Supreme Court held that a district court’s factual conclusion supporting a claim construction determination should be reviewed de novo on appeal. In the expected follow-up, the Supreme Court has now acted on a hadful of cases riding in Teva‘s wake. In particular, the Court has issued “GVR” decisions in the pending cases of Lighting Ballast v. Universal Lighting; Gevo v. Butamax, and Shire v. Watson Pharma. In a GVR, the Supreme Court Grants certiorari, but, rather than deciding the case in the merits, immediately Vacates the appellate court holding and Remands for further consideration — Grant-Vacate-Remand. For these cases, the Supreme Court wrote simply:
On remand, these cases will each challenge aspects of the new deferential review standards and, once they are decided, district courts will then understand whether the game has truly changed.  |
| Delano Farms v. California Table Grape Commission (Fed. Cir. 2015) Posted: 26 Jan 2015 06:59 AM PST by Dennis Crouch
Public Use: Under pre-AIA law, Section 102(b) renders patents invalid if the claimed invention was “in public use” more than one year before the application priority filing date and here, the question is whether certain proven third-party uses count under the law. Interesting Factual Story: The patented grapes here were created through a USDA project and the patents are owned by the USDA. More than one year before filing the patent applications, the USDA held an open house where it displayed the two varieties. At the event, a USDA employee (Klassen) gave some of the plants to a local grower (Ludy) but asked Ludy not to sell the grapes he might grow. Ludy also apparently understood at the time that Klassen had no authority and should not have given out the plants. Nevertheless, Ludy did grow the variety and also gave some buds to his cousin for him to grow. However, Ludy testified that his cousin also understood that he should keep the variety secret until it was commercially released by the USDA. (However, there was nothing written regarding the secrecy needed). The cousin grew several hundred plants but did not sell any of the resulting grapes before the one-year critical 102(b) date. Finally, Ludy also showed the plants to Sandrini who was an outside marketer of grapes for both Ludy and his cousin. Public Use: In interpreting the public use prong of 102(b), the Federal Circuit has focused on whether the invention was either accessible to the public or commercially exploited. Importantly, the court has previously held that "secret or confidential third-party uses do not invalidate later-filed patents.” Dey v. Sunovion. But the Leading public use case continues to be Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881). In that case, the inventor gave an under-garment corset to his love (who was not yet his wife) who wore it in various forms for 11 years before the patent application was filed. Even though there was no evidence that anyone in the public saw the corset, the Supreme Court found an impermissible public use and the patent void writing:
The challengers in the grape case here latched onto Egbert and argued that there was no real secrecy limitation here despite the fact that only a few individuals actually knew of the public use. Siding with the USDA Patentee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s factual findings that the patentee did not authorize Klassen to facilitate third party use of the invention and that Ludy understood that he should keep the variety secret until publicly released by the USDA. “The findings of the district court clearly establish, therefore, that both Ludys knew that they were not authorized to have the plants and that they needed to conceal their possession of the plants.” Distinguishing Egbert, the Federal Circuit noted that case turned on the inventor’s lack of effort to maintain secrecy. Here, the USDA made attempts to keep secrecy and, to a large extent, was successful. The tale here is interesting because of the way it softens the otherwise harsh limits under Section 102(b). Impact of the AIA: This case was decided under pre-AIA law because the patent application was filed prior to March 2013. The AIA rewrote much of the novelty provision of Section 102, but included the limit on patenting inventions already “in public use.” I would expect that under the new law, these same activities would likewise not be seen as being in public use. One difference with the AIA is that the critical date for public use is no longer one-year prior to the application filing date, but instead is moved-forward the actual filing date itself. In this case, that change would likely have made a difference because the third-parties were less private in the year leading up to the application filing, including commercial sales of the grapes.  |
Like their utility and design patent brethren, plant patents must also satisfy the patentability requirements of Section 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. In | You are subscribed to email updates from Patently-O » Patent To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment