Public Use Must Be for Intended Purpose of Invention to Trigger § 102(b) Bar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.31.07
In Motionless Keyboard Company v. Microsoft Corporation (No. 05-1497; May 29, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s decision of non-infringement but reverses the decision of invalidity. The two patents at issue, directed to an ergonomic keyboard, were developed by an independent inventor, who “traversed the patent system on a limited budget.” The district court held that both patents were invalid as the inventor demonstrated prototypes of his invention more than one year before the respective patent applications were filed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit states that the public-use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) does not apply to either patent. The demonstration of one invention was protected by a non-disclosure agreement. With respect to the demonstration of the other invention, the panel holds that the prototype “was never connected to be used in the normal course of business to enter data into a system.” The panel distinguishes the instant facts from those in the Supreme Court’s 1881 decision in Egbert v. Lippman and concludes that “the disclosures in this record do not rise to the level of public use.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
