Application Of On-Sale Bar Of Patented Method Requires Completion Of All Steps Prior To Critical Date
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.20.06
In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC (No. 06-1017; Dec. 18, 2006), the Federal Circuit vacates summary judgment of invalidity of Datamize's patents and remands for a determination of whether all of the steps of the patented method were actually performed before the critical date for an on-sale bar. The patented invention is for a method and computer program for creating other computer programs, which could be used to create an interactive kiosk system.
The patentee met with representatives of Ski Industry of America (SIA) before the critical date and offered to create a kiosk for an SIA tradeshow. Subsequently, and prior to the critical date, SIA sent a letter to the patentee confirming the patentee's participation in the trade show. The district court decided that an on-sale bar was triggered, because there was an agreement before the critical date that the patentee would provide a software/hardware package necessary to produce the interactive touch-screen information center as presented to SIA.
The Federal Circuit vacates the summary judgment, because the record does not clearly indicate (A) whether the agreement required use of the patented method, or (B) whether all of the steps of the patented method were performed before the critical date. The patentee began creating the kiosk system using the patented method prior to the critical date, but the kiosk system was not finished until after the critical date. Thus, the Federal Circuit remands for a determination of whether all of the steps of the patented method were performed prior to the critical date.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
In a somewhat ambiguous press release on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a halt and “immediate review” of new clinical trials where American patients’ cells are sent to China or other “hostile countries” for genetic engineering with the expectation that the cells will be infused back into U.S. patients.[1] A subsequent podcast published by the agency also said that therapies that involved cells that were sent to China for genetic engineering and intended for subsequent infusion into U.S. patients would not be approved going forward. The announcement said that there is “mounting evidence” that some clinical researchers failed to obtain informed consent from trial participants about the international transfer and manipulation of biological material.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.26.25
Ninth Circuit Affirms that CIPA Only Applies to Third-Party Eavesdropping
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.24.25
CBP Issues First Comprehensive Guide to Modifying a Withhold Release Order (WRO)