Remove Art Remove Invention Remove Patent Remove Public Use
article thumbnail

“Prior public use”: an effective ground for opposition against the grant of a European patent

Garrigues Blog

The opposition procedure for European patents, enables third parties, within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the patent, to oppose that patent at the European Patent Office (EPO). One of the most effective ways of obtaining the revocation is to prove “prior public use”.

article thumbnail

Confidentiality restrictions around clinical trials and prior public use (T 0670/20)

The IPKat

The patent was for a tablet formulation that had been given to patients in a clinical trial conducted before the patent had been filed. The question became whether the patients could be considered members of the public, and whether their participation in the clinical trial therefore constituted prior public use of the formulation.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Prior Art: The Patent Pitfall

Larson & Larson

A high number of patent applications are given a non-final rejection from the USPTO according to Yale. Often, the reason that the patent office will cite for rejecting an application is the presence of prior art. This makes the term ‘prior art’ an important concept for inventors to understand. Exceptions.

Art 52
article thumbnail

The Inventive Entity and Prior Publication by Another

Patently-O

Cheyer & Martin (but not Moran) file for patent protection on aspects of the OAA that were not fully disclosed within the original publication. And the Question : Does the prior publication count as prior art in an IPR obviousness analysis? = = =. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —. (a)

article thumbnail

Patent Law Canons and Canards: Bonito Boats

Patently-O

For our patent law course today, the students read the Justice O’Connor unanimous opinion in Bonito Boats, Inc. The Florida courts had refused to enforce the law because it conflicted with Federal Patent Law. The Florida courts had refused to enforce the law because it conflicted with Federal Patent Law. 141 (1989).

article thumbnail

Functional Medical Device Demonstrated at Trade Show Trigged On Sale Bar of pre-AIA 102(b)

LexBlog IP

9,186,208 on surgical devices for a procedure called endometrial ablation were anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § The Federal Circuit then pointed out that at the time of the public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” Hologic, Inc., § 102(b).

article thumbnail

No First Place Trophy Here: Public Demo at Trade Show Found Invalidating

JD Supra Law

Addressing the public use bar of pre-America-Invents-Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § Minerva Surgical, Inc.