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 | 02.13.26
In October 2024, the FTC adopted a final rule that substantially modified the HSR form, requiring new categories of information and documents. The final rule was the most significant overhaul of the HSR premerger notification requirements in decades. The new requirements imposed additional time and expense on merging parties, with the FTC estimating that the new form would likely take triple the amount of time to complete than the previous form. Numerous groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sued to challenge the rule.
Client Alert | 12 min read | 02.13.26
What Organ Procurement Organizations Need to Know About CMS's New Proposed Rule
Client Alert | 9 min read | 02.12.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.12.26

