Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Use of an Invention: 'Anticipating'?

By Brian Hoffman
September 01, 2003

Under U.S. patent law, an inventor is entitled to a patent if the invention is useful, novel, and nonobvious. The “novelty” prong of this tripartite test is controlled by 35 U.S.C. '102, which defines the “prior art” (ie, already existing technology) that can “anticipate,” or render non-novel, the invention. In general, an invention sought to be patented is anticipated when it already exists in the prior art, having been placed there either by a third party or through the inventor's own actions. Under '102, prior use of the invention can anticipate a patent in certain circumstances. Specifically, the statute states that: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was … used by others … before the invention thereof by the applicant …; or (b) the invention was … in public use … more than one year prior to the date of the application.”

According to the plain language of the law, '102(a) is satisfied by any use of the invention by someone other than the applicant before the invention by the applicant. In contrast, '102(b) requires a public use of the invention, whether performed by the applicant or a third party, more than a year before the filing date of the patent application. However, as a practical matter, courts require a “public use” under either prong. The key question, therefore, is what constitutes a “public use”?

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.