1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Public Use Must Be for Intended Purpose of Invention to Trigger § 102(b) Bar

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 | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights