Experimental Use Exception to the On-Sale Bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Is Unavailable After An Invention Has Been Reduced To Practice
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.29.08
In In re Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC, Patent Litigation (Nos. 2007-1328, -1329, -1330, -1331, -1332, -1333, -1354, -1361, 08-1023; August 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a summary judgment of patent invalidity under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirms its prior rulings that the experimental use exception is not available after an invention has been reduced to practice.
The Federal Circuit relies on an inventor's sworn declaration submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the asserted patents to prove that the claimed invention was ready for patenting under the § 102(b) analysis. In the declaration, the inventor claimed to have "reduced to practice" the invention prior to the critical date of the asserted patents. According to the Federal Circuit, a patentee is bound by such a declaration, regardless of whether it was necessary for the issuance of the patent. In light of the unavailability of the experimental use exception, the fact that "beta testers" paid to use the patented system constituted invalidating commercial sales under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Federal Circuit also holds that because a consolidated MDL proceeding is treated as a single multi-defendant action with respect to common issues, it is proper to treat it as a single action for a collateral estoppel analysis. In doing so the Court rejects defendants' argument that because the patentee appealed the district court's judgment of patent invalidity against fewer than all of the MDL defendants, collateral estoppel was invoked based on the final judgment in favor of the defendant against whom patentee did not appeal. According to the Court, the fact that plaintiff elected not to pursue its appellate rights against all of the MDL defendants should not be a basis for holding that it may not pursue those rights against any of the defendants.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.09.25
On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) withdrew its appeals of decisions issued by Texas and Florida federal district courts, which enjoined the FTC from enforcing a nationwide rule banning almost all noncompete employment agreements. Companies, however, should not read this decision to mean that their noncompete agreements will no longer be subjected to antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcers. In a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Chairman Andrew Ferguson stressed that the FTC “will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements” and warned that “firms in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements will receive [in the coming days] warning letters from me, urging them to consider abandoning those agreements as the Commission prepares investigations and enforcement actions.”
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.08.25
California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continue to Roll Forward
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.08.25
RADV Audits: Implications and Recommendations for Medicare Advantage Organizations
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.04.25
