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 | 10 min read | 10.15.25
Understanding the EU’s International Procurement Instrument
In June 2025, the European Commission adopted its first-ever measures under the International Procurement Instrument Regulation (IPI), restricting access to the EU public procurement market for medical devices for economic operators and medical devices from the People’s Republic of China. This is the first application of the IPI, a new trade instrument aimed at tackling lack of reciprocity in access to public procurement in third countries.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.14.25
Client Alert | 35 min read | 10.13.25
Building Blocks of Design Law: CJEU rules on LEGO Group Modular Design Protection
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.13.25