Early Sales May Kill Your Patents

Patent applicants may, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to sell their technologies prior to filing patent applications. Sometimes, however, such early sales can have seriously negative effects on the patentability of their inventions. This is because such sales, or even offers for sale, can be invalidating public uses or disclosures. This blawg explores the pitfalls of prior sales and how to avoid them.

In a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court reaffirmed that some sales and offers for sales can negate U.S. patentability under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include:

1. A bone fide sale or offer for sale,
2. The fact of the sale (or offer) was made public, and
3. The invention was “ready for patenting” by the “critical date,”
i.e. the day that is one year before the filing date.

See Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir. 2017). The Court was faced with the question of whether the America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”) changed the sales activities that trigger the “on-sale bar.” Without diving too deeply into “inside baseball,” the Court found that the AIA did not disturb the three-part analysis described above.

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. ("Helsinn") is the owner of four patents directed to intravenous formulations of palonosetron for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting ("CINV"). Helsinn entered into two agreements with MGI Pharma, Inc. ("MGI"), an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The agreements were (1) a License, and (2) a Supply and Purchase Agreement. These agreements were announced in a joint press release and in MGI's Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Helsinn’s U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 ("the '219 patent") expressly covered a .25 mg dose and was one of the patents subject to those agreements. The agreements were consummated about 2 years before the ‘219 patent filing date (and thus before the critical date). Notably, the parties did not disclose the .25 mg dosage in the press release and Form 8-K filing.

Helsinn Court found that there was a bone fide sale of the .25 mg dose and that it was “ready for patenting” prior to the critical date. Notably, the Court found that, under the AIA, it did not matter that the parties did not describe the claimed .25 mg dose of palonosetron in the press release or Form 8-K filing. The take home message is that the invention, sale, and public disclosure of that sale before the critical date bars patentability. It does not matter whether the actual invention is described or enabled by the disclosure. Furthermore, the Court declined to decide whether secret sales can fulfill the second prong.

Companies and inventors that are highly motivated to sell their inventions should not be deterred from their commercial activities. They should, however, file at least provisional patent applications covering those inventions before a license or sales agreement is consummated. While the AIA continues to provide a one year grace period for a patent applicant’s sales, other countries around the world do not have the grace period. Thus, filing applications as soon as is practicable may significantly strengthen global patent portfolios. Furthermore, one should be careful about what technical information is disclosed to potential customers and partners during the negotiation stage. Where practicable, have an attorney-approved non-disclosure agreement in place.

Patent Strategies for Startup Companies

I often have the pleasure of working with entrepreneurs and scientists that start companies to commercialize their great ideas. Usually, such founders want patents and have a “patent strategy,” but what exactly does that mean? The answer is not simple, is different for every company, and is highly fact-specific. Read More...

You Can't Get Anything You Want at Alice's Restaurant

This blawg is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and CLS Bank, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the case, that's just the name of the blawg, and that's why I called the blawg Alice's Restaurant. Read More...

Who Really Owns Your Patents

Highly productive scientists and engineers are often eager to start companies around their great ideas. Such entrepreneurs, however, should take care to ensure their ownership of the patent estate. Read More...

A Walk Down Memory Lane

It happens to the best of them. In 2007, Steve Jobs wowed us with Apple’s new device, the iPhone. On September 26, 2013, a German Court was wowed by the same video. Mr. Jobs was one of the inventors on European Patent No. EP2059868. Prior to the earliest priority date on which the German Court could rely, Mr. Jobs introduced a claimed feature of the patent -- the rubber banding effect. For instance, in the 37the minute, he showed the rubber banding effect:

Based on this disclosure, the Court invalidated the patent within the German borders. This is a good example of why inventors and patent assignees should be careful about the disclosures they make about important technologies prior to filing for patent applications.

comments powered by Disqus


A Myriad of Questions for Biofuel Patents

So you’ve heard about or read the AMP v. Myriad Genetics case. You know that the Supreme Court was asked whether “human genes are patent eligible.” You’re wondering whether it will affect the biofuel patent estates that are near and dear to your heart (or perhaps not so dear). My answer to your question is a most definite “maybe.”

Evaluating a Company's Patent Position

In December, 2012, ExecSense, the world's largest publisher of professional webinars, eBooks & more, published my eBook, Evaluating a Company’s Patent Position. The following is the Executive Summary:

There are many reasons that patent attorneys may be asked to conduct diligence reviews of a company’s patent estate. Investors may seek to take an equity position. Banks may seek to extend loans. Other companies may seek to acquire the company, its assets, or start a joint venture. Evaluating a company’s patent position is a complex matter with many moving parts. It is much like peeling an onion where each bit of information may open up a new line of inquiry. While some parts of the process should be accomplished early, there is no strict chronological order in which the steps of the investigations unfold.

Broadly speaking, the steps in a patent diligence evaluation require multiple lines of inquiry. The attorneys investigate the company’s patent rights and the content of the underlying patent families. Also, the company’s products, services, R&D, and commercial timelines – as well as those of its competitors – must be ascertained. These should be compared with the company’s patented and pending claims. Also, the attorneys should investigate the validity and enforceability of the company’s patents and any relevant litigation. All this should be accomplished while preserving confidential information and the attorney-client privilege.

This chapter is not a do-it-yourself guide on patent diligence. There are too many complex issues and concerns about the facts, the law, confidentiality, and the attorney client privilege for anybody but a competent attorney – or team of attorneys – to tackle. Rather, I hope that the following narrative helps educate the consumers of patent diligence.

To read the whole book, you can find it at the following links:

comments powered by Disqus

Publish And Perish: The Tension Between Publishing And Patenting

In re Droge serves as a cautionary reminder to those who manage the publication policies of inventors. In this case, one of the inventor’s own prior publications was used to find that the claimed invention was obvious. Thus, it is critical to manage inventor publication activities to minimize the risk of creating prior art against your own patents. Some guiding principles are provided for patent professionals or others that seek to manage publication policies. Read More...

Alice Pushes Back on Prometheus: The Continuing Saga of Patent-Eligible Methods

At the intersection of computer technology and biology, Bilski, Prometheus, and their progeny are restricting what can be claimed in U.S. Patents. The Federal Circuit, however, has pushed back against this tide of patent-ineligibility with CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Some may welcome this decision while others may struggle to harmonize seemingly conflicting case law. Read More...

Tossing Bombs: Third Party Submissions in Pending U.S. Patent Applications

The America Invents Act brings to the USPTO a relatively simple and inexpensive way to influence the early prosecution of competitors’ patent applications. Third Party Submissions allow anybody to provide Examiners with prior art and explain why it matters. Read More...