The US Supreme Court has held that an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party obligated to keep the invention confidential (i.e., a “secret sale”) can qualify as prior art under 35 USC Section 102(a). Helsinn Healthcare sought reversal of a Federal Circuit opinion to that effect, arguing that under the amended version of that section within the America Invents Act (AIA), an inventor’s confidential disclosure to a third party does not trigger the on-sale bar. The US Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit, noting both that the amended statute included the same language, amply construed in prior case law, as the prior version and that “[t]he addition of ‘or otherwise available to the public’ is simply not enough of a change for us to conclude that congress intended to alter the meaning of the reenacted ‘on sale’”.
Subscription Required
This content requires a subscription to view
- Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
- Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
- Proprietary litigation timelines
- Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
- Judge, venue, and law firm analytics
Related News
Details
Campaigns
Litigations
- HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al
- HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al
- HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al
- Helsinn Healthcare SA et al v. Cipla Ltd. et al
- Helsinn Healthcare SA et al v. Eurohealth International Sarl et al.
- HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al v. Accord Healthcare Inc.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al v. Cipla Ltd. et al
- Helsinn Healthcare SA et al v. Mylan Institutional LLC
- HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al