Opinion ID: 1040588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restrictions on Use

Text: In the seminal case Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881), the Supreme Court articulated the principal inquiry regarding public use: Was the invention’s use public in the sense that it was made available to others with no limitation or restriction? Specifically in Egbert, an inventor made several embodiments of his invention, springs to be used with a women’s corset, and gave them to a friend who wore them under her clothes for several years. Egbert, 104 U.S. at 335. Despite the essentially concealed nature of the friend’s use, the Supreme Court invalidated the patent: If an inventor, having made his device, gives or sells it to another, to be used by the donee or ven- dee, without limitation or restriction, or injunction of secrecy, and it is so used, such use is public, even though the use and knowledge of the use may be confined to one person. Id. at 336. The inquiry is not whether the third person to whom an invention is disclosed makes an open and obvious use of it, but whether the inventor himself has made a use of his invention which is “public” because it was given to a member of the public without restriction. Given the nature of the inquiry, our case law understandably focuses on the limitations, restrictions, or secrecy obligations associated with a purported public use. See, e.g., Dey, 715 F.3d at 1355; Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 295 F.3d at 1321. We have explained that “whether an invention is accessible to the public or reasonably believed to be freely available depends, at least in part, on the degree of confidentiality surrounding its use.” Dey, 715 F.3d at 1355 (internal quotation marks omitted). The degree of PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS 13 confidentiality necessary to avoid a finding of public use naturally depends on the circumstances.” Id. To analyze the degree of confidentiality surrounding a purported public use, we have also focused on the amount of control which the discloser retains over the invention during the uses in question. For example, in Lough v. Brunswick Corp., 86 F.3d 1113, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1996), we invalidated a patent despite an inventor’s argument that the uses were experimental, because he had given the invention—seals for boat motors—to several friends who, in turn, installed and tested one on a boat, which they later sold. 86 F.3d at 1121. After the sale, neither the inventor nor the friends “knew what happened with either the prototype or the demonstration boat after the boat was sold,” so the inventor “did not maintain any supervision and control over the seals during the alleged testing.” Id. Similarly, in Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005), we found that a demonstration of the invention to “two Sun Microsystems employees without confidentiality agreements” was an invalidating public use under § 102(b), even though there was no evidence that those employees personally “used” the invention. 399 F.3d at 1334. And, in Beachcombers, International, Inc. v. Wildewood Creative Products, Inc., 31 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we affirmed a jury verdict finding public use of a patented device under § 102(b) based on evidence that the designer and developer demonstrated a prototype at a party for her guests to view. 31 F.3d at 1159–60. On the other hand, in Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265–67 (Fed. Cir. 1986), we upheld a patent even though the inventor had showed prototypes of the invention, a threedimensional puzzle, to several friends and his employer over the course of five years. 793 F.2d at 1263. We upheld the lower court’s findings that the inventor “at all times retained control over the puzzle’s use and the distribution of information concerning it,” and he “re- 14 PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS tained control even though he and [the employer] had not entered into any express confidentiality agreement.” Id. at 1266. Also among the circumstances of the disclosure upon which we have focused is the sophistication of those to whom disclosure was made. As we recently explained in Dey, while a public use might not arise where disclosure is limited to a small number of uninformed observers, “even limited disclosure to those who are skilled enough to know, understand, and ‘easily demonstrate the invention to others,’ may mean that there was no reasonable expectation of secrecy and that the invention was therefore in public use.” Dey, 715 F.3d at 1356 (citing Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 295 F.3d at 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).