Category Archives: On-Sale Bar

DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages reversed based on attorney opinion; reasonably royalty affirmed

Posted on May 12, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc. et al. (“Venture”) Docket No. 2020-1640, -1641 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1640.OPINION.4-29-2022_1943607.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL April 29, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Experimental Use, Expert Testimony, Infringement, Lost Profits, On-Sale Bar, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC grant of no invalidity of design patent reversed due to pre-critical date offer for sale

Posted on March 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Larry K. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Martech Medical Products, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1649 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1649.OPINION.2-10-2022_1906548.pdf) DYK, REYNA, STOLL February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding no invalidity of design patent for invalidity due to pre-critical date offer for sale … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar holdings reversed (e.g., must be accessible to the public)

Posted on April 15, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Company, et al. Docket No. 2019-1243 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions finding prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar reversed and remanded. Summary: BASF appealed DC decision granted … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

Failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for sale was inequitable conduct, DC decision affirmed

Posted on March 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

GS Cleantech, Cantor Colburn LLP v. Adkins Energy LLC, Big River Resources et al. Docket No. 2016-2231, -1838, 2017-1832 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES March 2, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct for failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, On-Sale Bar, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”)

Posted on May 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc. Docket No. 2017-2423 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES May 21, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”) reversed. Summary: Quest appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Posted on January 24, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1284, -1787 DYK, MAYER, O’MALLEY May 1, 2017 (FC panel); June 25, 2018 (SCOTUS); Jan. 24, 2019 (SCOTUS) Update 2 (Jan. 24, 2019): Update 2 (Jan. 24, 2019): SCOTUS affirmed the FC panel decision, holding that “a commercial … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Posted on July 12, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SCOTUS Docket No. 17-1229 FC Docket No. 2016-1284, -1787 DYK, MAYER, O’MALLEY May 1, 2017 Brief Summary: In its May decision, an FC panel reversed the DC and found the asserted claims invalid under the § 102(b) on-sale bar, the … Continue reading →

Posted in On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

Posted on February 13, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1469, -1504 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES February 6, 2018 Brief summary: DC’s decision that distribution agreement was not an offer for sale reversed as the agreement “make[s] clear that [MedCo] and ICS entered into an agreement to sell and … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Posted on May 2, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1284, -1787 DYK, MAYER, O’MALLEY May 1, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel reversed DC and found the asserted claims invalid under the § 102(b) on-sale bar. The FC panel concluded that the AIA did not change the meaning … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) v. Hospira, Inc.

Posted on July 12, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1469, -1504 En banc opinion July 11, 2016 Brief Summary: En banc opinion concluded “a product produced pursuant to the claims of a product-by-process patent is ‘on sale’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)…must be the subject of a … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment