on sale bar Archives

on sale bar

Neck or Nothing? “Quotation” Invalidates On-Sale Bar

by Keval Amin | Dec 19, 2024 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the patents at issue invalid based on the patent owner’s “quotation” letter to a third party, concluding it was a commercial offer for sale under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) notwithstanding the patent owner’s reservation of a post-quote acceptance. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., Case Nos. 22-2299; -2300 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

Crown Packaging Technology owns patents for necking machines, which reduce the top diameter of metal beverage cans. The earliest priority date for the patents was April 24, 2008, setting the critical date of April 24, 2007. On November 14, 2006, Crown sent Complete Packaging Machinery a letter quoting one of its necking machines that embodied the claims of its patents.

Crown sued Belvac Production Machinery for infringing Crown’s patents. Belvac raised an invalidity defense under § 102(b), contending that Crown’s pre-critical-date letter to Complete Packaging constituted a commercial offer for sale, which rendered the patents invalid. On summary judgment, Crown argued that its letter could not create a binding contract, was not a commercial offer for sale, and was not an offer for sale “in this country” as required by § 102(b). The district court agreed with Crown, finding that the letter was merely an invitation to make an offer, not an offer in itself. At trial, the jury found the patents valid but not infringed. Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s validity determination, finding that Crown’s letter was an invalidating offer for sale under § 102(b). The Court’s analysis involved five factors:

Whether the subject of the offer embodied the claims of the patents.
Whether the offer occurred “in this country.”
Whether the offer predated the critical date.
Whether the invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale.
Whether the invention was ready for patenting.

Crown conceded that the necking machine embodied the asserted patent claims, was ready for patenting, and that the letter predated the critical date. Thus, the dispute focused on whether the letter was a commercial offer for sale and whether it was made “in this country.”

The Federal Circuit determined that the letter was a commercial offer for sale. While labeled as a “quotation,” the letter included definite terms typically associated with a binding offer, such as pricing, delivery schedules, payment terms, warranties, and liability conditions. These terms established the mutual obligations of the parties. The Court found that the letter required immediate performance since Complete Packaging was obligated to pay 50% of the purchase price upfront and Crown committed to begin manufacturing upon receipt of payment. Also, despite an explicit clause requiring Crown’s written acceptance, the Court found that the letter was still a commercial offer for sale under established legal precedent.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Crown’s argument that the letter was not made “in this country.” Pre-AIA § 102(b) defines an offer made to a US company at its US [...]

Continue Reading

Patent by Secret Process: Perils of Pre-Patent Profiting

by Connor S. Romm | Aug 22, 2024 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using the patented process were sold more than one year before the patents’ effective filing dates. Celanese International Corporation, et al. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Celanese owns patents that cover a process for making the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Ace-K). It was undisputed that Celanese’s patented process was in secret use in Europe and that Ace-K produced using this process had been sold in the United States before the patents’ effective filing dates. Under pre-AIA caselaw, such sales of products made using a secret process before the critical date would trigger the on-sale bar and invalidate any later-sought patent claims on that process. However, because Celanese’s patents had effective filing dates after March 15, 2013, the AIA rules applied. Thus, the case hinged on whether the AIA altered this rule.

In 2019, in Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court addressed similar facts and confirmed that the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA “on sale” case law, which established that “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, still applied. In Helsinn, the patentee had obtained a patent related to a fixed dose of palonosetron. Prior to the critical date, the patentee entered into a supply and purchase agreement with a third party that covered this same fixed dose of palonosetron. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress, by reenacting similar language in the AIA concerning the on-sale bar, appeared to have adopted the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA interpretation of the on-sale bar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with Federal Circuit pre-AIA precedent, an inventor’s prior sale of an invention to a third party can qualify as invalidating prior art even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

However, unlike in Helsinn, where the claimed invention was the very subject of the commercial sale at issue, Celanese’s patents covered the secret process used to make Ace-K, and it was only the resulting Ace-K that was the subject of commercial sale – not the patented process itself. Although this distinction would not alter the outcome under pre-AIA law, Celanese averred that the AIA had revised the rules for this specific situation. To support its theory, Celanese referenced, among other things, the AIA’s use of the phrase “claimed invention” as opposed to simply “invention” as recited in pre-AIA discussion of the on-sale bar. According to Celanese, this change implied that the invention specifically “claimed” must be on sale to qualify as invalidating prior art.

The ITC rejected Celanese’s argument, concluding that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that “a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability.” Accordingly, the ITC found that Celanese’s patents were invalid because Celanese sold Ace-K made using its secret process more [...]

Continue Reading

Hit the Brakes: Experimental Use, Enhanced Damages Determinations Require Redo

by Paul Devinsky | May 12, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision regarding experimental use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the application of enhanced damages based on an allegedly flawed noninfringement and invalidity opinion. Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1640; -1641. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) (Prost, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Sunoco sued Venture for infringement of four patents related to blending butane into gasoline. Venture argued that certain patent claims were invalid because they were subject to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The district court found that the sale at issue was primarily for experimentation and that the on-sale bar did not apply. Venture also argued that certain claim terms required measuring the actual vapor pressure of the butane and gasoline, but the district court rejected this argument. The district court found infringement and awarded Sunoco $2 million in damages, which it trebled to $6 million after finding that Venture lacked a good faith belief of invalidity or noninfringement because the legal opinion Venture relied upon was flawed. Venture appealed.

On appeal, Venture challenged numerous issues, including the district court’s rejection of its on-sale bar defense, construction of two claim terms and decision to enhance damages.

The Federal Circuit first addressed the district court’s finding that the on-sale bar did not apply to certain claims of two of the asserted patents. Reviewing de novo, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s 2019 Helsinn v. Teva decision, which requires that the on-sale bar applies if the invention was the subject of a commercial sale and ready for patenting. Analyzing the first prong, the Court looked to the contract language of the sale at issue. The inventor’s company offered to sell and install its butane blending technology at a customer’s fuel terminal more than one year before filing the patent application. The terms of the agreement required that the customer commit to purchasing at least 500,000 barrels of butane as consideration for the installation of the fuel mixing system. The Court noted that this agreement expressly described the transaction as a “sale” and did not reference any experimental purpose.

The Federal Circuit was not swayed by the lower court’s view that the contract did not require the customer to pay for the system directly, finding that a commitment to buy product in the future constituted a sale. The Court also gave little weight to the preinstallation testing terms of the agreement, finding that those tests were not experiments, but rather tests to confirm that the equipment was operating as contractually promised. Additional contract terms further cemented the Court’s view that this transaction was a sale, including language that the technology had already been “developed” and that title to the equipment transferred to the customer. The Court concluded that the sale of the system to the customer was not primarily for experimentation. The Court reversed the district court’s experimental-use determination and vacated its infringement determination, directing [...]

Continue Reading

Multiple Purchasing Options Overpower Use of “Quotation” in Finding Offer for Sale

by Joshua Revilla | Feb 24, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment of no invalidity under the on-sale bar, finding that the completeness of relevant commercial sale terms, including multiple purchase options, was not an invitation to further negotiate but rather was multiple offers for sale. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Case No. 21-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Larry Junker designed a sheath that makes it easier for doctors to grasp the sheath during catheter insertion. After designing the sheath, Junker inquired about manufacturing and eventually began a business relationship with James Eddings and his company, Galt Medical, to manufacture the product. Eddings also started a new company, Xentek Medical, to help with the development, manufacture and sale of the product. In January 1999, Eddings, through Xentek, communicated with Boston Scientific Corporation about the sheath products and sent a letter detailing bulk pricing information for the products. The letter concluded by noting Eddings’ appreciation for “the opportunity to provide this quotation.” In February 2000, Junker filed a design patent directed to an “ornamental design for a handle for introducer sheath.”

Junker sued MedComp in 2013 for infringement of the claimed design. In response, MedComp asserted invalidity, unenforceability and noninfringement defenses, as well as counterclaims. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment for several issues, including invalidity under the on-sale bar. The primary dispute regarding the on-sale bar was whether the January 1999 letter to Boston Scientific was considered an offer for sale of a product embodying the claimed design. The district court found that it was not an offer for sale because it was a preliminary negotiation and not a definite offer. The district court reasoned that although the letter included many specific commercial terms, the repeated use of the word “quotation” and the invitation to discuss specifics rendered the letter a preliminary negotiation. The district court proceeded with a bench trial, ultimately finding in favor of Junker and awarding damages. MedComp appealed.

A patent claim is invalid under § 102(b) if the invention was on sale more than a year before the application date and the claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale and was ready for patenting. There was no dispute that the January 1999 letter was sent more than one year before the patent’s filing and that the claimed design was also ready for patenting. As a result, the only issue on appeal was whether the letter was a commercial offer for sale of the claimed design.

The Federal Circuit determined that the letter was a commercial offer for sale. The Court found that the statement that Xentek was responding to a “request for quotation” signaled that the letter was more than just an unsolicited price quote and was instead a specific offer to take further action. The Court found that the letter contained many necessary terms typical in a commercial contract, including prices for bulk shipments, specific delivery conditions and payment terms. The Court [...]

Continue Reading

Claimed Process Not Anticipated by Third-Party’s Prior Secret Use

by James M. Oehler | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

Declining to extend the public-use bar to third-party commercial uses of secret processes, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling that found a patent invalid under the “known or used by others,” “on-sale” and “public-use” bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102. BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co. et al., Case No. 19-1243 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Lourie, J.).

BASF owns a patent on a process for preparing certain polymers. The claimed polymerization process allows easy removal of “sticky” polymers from walls of the tubular reaction vessel by including a conical taper with specific dimensions at the bottom of the vessel. BASF filed a patent infringement suit against SNF, who in turn alleged that the prior art “Sanwet” process invalidated the patent. The Sanwet process was developed in Japan by Sanyo and licensed to third-party Celanese for use in the US prior to the patent’s critical date. Sanyo provided substantial technical support to help Celanese with the process. Celanese was required to keep the Sanwet process confidential and could only disclose information to employees on a need-to-know basis. Employees were also required to sign confidentiality agreements.

(more…)

Choosing Advocacy over Candor Renders Patent Unenforceable

by Paul Devinsky | Mar 19, 2020 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that the patents-in-suit were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct because of a failure to disclose information related to an offer for sale of the claimed invention made more than one year prior to the critical date. GS Cleantech Corp v Adkins Energy LLC, Case Nos. 16-2231, 17-1838; GS Cleantech Corp. et al. v. Big River Resources Galva, LLC et al., Case No. 17-1832 (Fed Cir. March 2, 2020) (Wallach, J.)

(more…)