5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
Newsflash: Rockweed Not a Fish
This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more
Ending four years of litigation in consolidated cases filed by the Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. (“Nahant”) and Northeastern University (“Northeastern” or “the University”), the Massachusetts Appeals Court determined that...more
The Nahant Preservation Trust, the town of Nahant, and certain Nahant residents have suffered another loss in their years-long legal battle to stop Northeastern University from expanding its Marine Science Center, located on...more
On September 12, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision that declared the City of Sammamish––and all other municipalities enumerated under Revised Code of Washington 8.12.030––does not lose its...more
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may...more
The construction of a bike path ran into a bump in the road when the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District (Park District) attempted to take land through eminent domain. The Park District is a public entity that is attempting...more
Rodney Keister was challenging the University of Alabama’s grounds use policy, which requires individuals to obtain a permit before speaking publicly on campus. In his arguments, Keister asserted that the space he was using...more
In a cautionary tale for inventors participating in trade shows and other non-confidential presentations, on February 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision invalidating...more
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1640, -1641 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) - Our case of the week has a little bit for everyone, including lost profits, reasonable royalties,...more
Some might argue that challenging the necessity of an appropriation involving a public utility or common carrier is a futile act, given the presumption of the necessity under R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(c). In State ex rel. Bohlen v....more
In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more
A New York Appellate Court (Fourth Department) (“Court”) addressed in a November 8th Order an action filed by a potential purchaser of a 50 acre parcel of property against the Town of Carroll, New York alleging a taking...more
On November 25, 2019, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the public’s use of a road for more than half a century to access Martin’s Beach was permissive, and therefore “did not ripen into a public dedication that would...more
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The California Constitution contains a similar provision. Reading these constitutional...more
This Fall, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) was handed down two significant victories, further cementing its authority and jurisdiction within California coastal zones. These cases demonstrate that, in certain...more
The quality of a property’s frontage on a street or way can define its development potential and therefore its value. The gold standard, which will allow a comfortable check in the ‘frontage’ box in most Massachusetts...more
In a recent judgement by the Supreme Court, the circumstances under which a court may intervene and cancel an action for expropriation were considered....more
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (Jan. 22, 2019)....more
Addressing whether the on-sale bar of America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(a)(1) applies to confidential sales where specific details are not made public, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the post-AIA...more
If the term "happy hour" in this article's title caught your attention, you may be disappointed by what comes next. This article is actually about limitations on patent protection, which I would argue is just as...more
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
The Supreme Court recently issued its closely-watched decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which has direct implications regarding the scope of § 102 prior art under the America Invents Act...more
Prior to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) prohibited patenting an invention that was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for...more
Inventors should not delay the filing of their patent applications, and preferably should file within one year of any commercialization of the invention, as confirmed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2019....more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the...more