Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G00M9924006%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:08:38+00:00

Document:
Adopting patent rights to establish a competitive advantage in global commercial market has become trendy among competitors in recent years. However, a patent right needs to prove its validity through litigation in the court in order to successfully rule out competition and create profits for the business. According to statistics, more and more US patents have been found invalid when patent infringement cases being brought into the court. Among all the cases, 35 U.S.C. §102, pertaining to the novelty, has been frequently observed to be the reason of patent invalidity.
Many patents are directed to the results of experimental works. The United States had a “first to invent” patent system, and thus, patent acquisition depends on the time of accomplishing an invention rather than the date of filing. Consequently, undisclosed research activities may seriously make impacts on the patentability (validity) when they are deemed prior inventions. When experimental works and the outcomes are deemed prior inventions, the novelty of the invention for patent application should be determined on whether the invention is devoid of novelty in view of the experimental works. On the contrary, if the experimental works and the outcomes are not deemed prior inventions, which are only secrets, the patent application does not need to be compared with the undisclosed prior invention for novelty.
Whether experimental works can be treated as prior inventions or not depends on the fitting of individual provision into Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g). The specific application of Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g) should refer to precedents ruled by the U.S. court.
This paper mainly focuses on how an experimental work and the outcome are to be deemed a prior invention and the impact resulting from the finding. To achieve this, this paper firstly analyzes the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g); secondly, this paper studies several patent litigation cases. In particular, it is analyzed whether a study result should be deemed prior art for determining novelty when a patent has an effective filing date later than the study result. All cases raised and studied in this paper share a same finding: the U.S. courts found the patent to be invalid based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g).
Moreover, when experimental works, either conducted under a joint research agreement or accomplished independently, have not been disclosed in public or filed for patent, the experimental works cannot be known by a third party. Since the experimental works or the outcomes can only be treated as secret information and technology, they would not be viewed as prior inventions on the ground of novelty. As mentioned above, when the scenario of an experimental work fits into pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g), the experimental works and the outcomes would be deemed prior inventions, rendering the accused patent invalid. However, when the experimental works are conducted under a joint research agreement, the ruling may be differently made. According to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(c), when a joint-inventor files for a patent, any third party cannot assert invalidity of the patent on the ground of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g) based on the rest of the joint-inventors’ work.
Finally, this paper discusses secret prior art which has not been disclosed nor filed for patent. The AIA established in 2011 adopts the principle of first inventor to file, hence, secret prior art is no longer considered when examining a patent application. When a third party files an application for patent that is directed to the same technology as secret prior art, the secret prior art holder can only use a prior use right to raise a plea against patent infringement if the secret prior art holder fails to file a patent application before the deadline. To assert the right of prior use against a patent infringement lawsuit has to meet certain requirements, this paper also studies the requirements in an attempt to assist secret prior art holders to avoid possible huge damages in a patent infringement case.
Brandee N. Woolard (2014), The resurrection of the duty to inquire after therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & CO. Duke Law & Technology Review January 19, 2014.
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 9, Number 1 Winter 1996, pp.148-179.
Diane H. Crawley (2014), America Invents Act: Promoting Progress or Spurring Secrecy? University of Hawai'i Law Review.
Edward R. Kazenske (2003/12), The future of prior art searching at the United States patent and trademark office. World Patent Information, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 283-287.
Gary L. Griswold & F. Andrew Ubel (1993), Prior User Rights-A Necessary Part of a First-to-File System.The John Marshall Law Review, Vol. 26 No. 3 pp 567-592.
T. Black, G. Hayes, P. Lintz, A.F. Purcell (1997/9), Use of the internet in the USPTO for the patent examination process. World Patent Information, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 153-159.
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2001).
Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 36-37 (7th Cir. 1975).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 524, 537 (E.D.Va.2011).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 700 F.3d 1300, 2012 WL 5935680 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 420.
Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 1940).
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F. 3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Teva Pharmaceutical v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 748 F.Supp.2d. 453, 464 (E.D.Pa.2010).
Teva Pharmaceutical v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 661 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, 591 F.Supp.2d 729 (D.Del. 2008).
Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Intern. Inc., 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Intern. Inc., 742 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

References: §102
 §102
 §102
 §102
 §102
 §102
 §103
 §102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.