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.”

Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.08.26

Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21: Good Faith in the Boardroom

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Mr Francesco Costa, former chairman of Spring Media Investments Limited, in the first Supreme Court judgment to consider the scope of the duty under section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006. The foundational position is that good faith requires honest conduct as well as honest thinking. A director's genuine belief that they are acting in the company's best interests will not excuse covert or disloyal conduct in pursuit of that belief. ...