Opinion ID: 2929114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Experimentation Exception

Text: Even if we were to decide that a commercial offer for sale of the magnetic brakes was contained in the October 19 letter, a reasonable attorney could still have concluded that the magnetic braking system was not “ready for patenting” when the Hellevator was sold to Kentucky Kingdom. An invention 14 MAGNETAR TECHS. V. INTAMIN is “ready for patenting” if it has been “reduc[ed] to practice before the critical date . . . [or if] prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.” Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 67–68. The Federal Circuit has described “reduction to practice” as “proof that an invention will work for its intended purpose.” See EZ Dock, Inc. v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Federal Circuit also held that ongoing experiments on an invention after the critical sale date can show that the invention had not been reduced to practice. Id. at 1352–53. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the Federal Circuit, and we adopt its holding on this issue. There is ample evidence in the record showing that experiments on the magnetic brakes continued after the critical sale date. According to a report issued in March 1995—just one month before the critical date—the magnetic brake technology was still being studied, and the final parameters were unknown. Sandor Kernacs, President of Intamin, testified that experiments on the magnetic brake technology continued into June and July of 1995. Magnetar argues that when an invention is reduced to practice, the applicability of the experimentation exception to the on-sale bar is negated. We agree that this is legally correct. See, e.g., Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In the present case, however, Magnetar needed to show that every reasonable attorney would have thought that the magnetic braking system had been reduced to practice, and thus, would have thought that the on-sale bar applied. Because Magnetar has MAGNETAR TECHS. V. INTAMIN 15 not made such a showing, it cannot prove that Intamin lacked probable cause to bring the patent infringement action against Magnetar.