Source: https://www.pckip.com/summary/cafc-to-rehear-on-sale-bar-novelty-case
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:39:40+00:00

Document:
Does a private sale from a supplier count as a novelty-destroying disclosure? A series of cases has held that, yes, a simple purchase from a supplier can constitute disclosure that could compromise the patentability of the product being sold (the “on-sale bar”). One of such cases, The Medicines Co v Hospira, is currently being reconsidered by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
(a) Do the circumstances presented here constitute a commercial sale under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)? (i) Was there a sale for the purposes of § 102(b) despite the absence of a transfer of title? (ii) Was the sale commercial in nature for the purposes of § 102(b) or an experimental use?
(b) Should this court overrule or revise the principle in Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc., 270 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001), that there is no “supplier exception” to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
An interesting factor at play here is that the novelty provisions under 35 U.S. Code § 102 have changed since the America Invents Act. The “on-sale” language is now under Section 102 (a)(1) and the structure of Section 102 has been reworked to reflect a first-inventor-to-file (FITF) system.
Although there is little change to the “on-sale” language, some argue that, under the new FITF system, novelty destroying sales should only include sales that are made available to the public – not between suppliers. This change would certainly seem to accord better with the fundamental bargain theory behind patent law, which holds that patents are granted in exchange for disclosing an invention to the world. A private sale between suppliers might not necessarily be a disclosure of the invention to the world.

References: § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 v. 
 § 102
 § 102