Legal Document

525 U.S. 55119 S.Ct. 304142 L.Ed.2d 261 124 F.3d 1429 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESWAYNE K. PFAFF, PETITIONERv.WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. No. 97 1130 November 10, 1998 ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES OFAPPEALS FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Section 102(b) Patent Act 1952 provides that no person is entitled to patent an "invention" has been "on sale" more than one year before filing a application.1 We granted certiorari determine whether commercial marketing newly invented product may mark beginning 1-year period even though invention not yet reduced practice.2 2 * On April 19, 1982, petitioner, Wayne Pfaff, filed application for on computer chip socket. Therefore, 1981, constitutes critical date purposes on-sale bar 35 U. S. C. §102(b); if began run date, Pfaff lost his right invention. 3 commenced work socket in 1980, when representatives Texas Instruments asked him develop new device mounting and removing semiconductor carriers. In response this request, he prepared detailed engineering drawings described design, dimensions, materials be used making sent those manufacturer February or March 1981. 4 Prior 17, showed sketch concept Instruments. 8, they provided with written confirmation previously placed oral purchase order 30,100 sockets total price $91,155. accord normal practice, did make test prototype offering sell it quantities.3 5 The took several months customized tooling necessary produce device, fill until July evidence therefore indicates first practice summer achieved substantial success 4,491,377 (the '377 patent) issued January 1, 1985.4 6 After issued, petitioner brought infringement action against respondent, Wells Electronics, Inc., competing prevailed basis finding infringement.5 When respondent market modified suit, alleging modifications infringed six claims patent. 7 full evidentiary hearing Special Master,6 District Court held two (1 6) were invalid because had anticipated prior art. Nevertheless, court concluded four other (7, 11, 19) valid three 11) by various models respondent's sockets. App. Pet. Cert. 21a 22a. Adopting Master's findings, rejected §102(b) defense less after reducing practice. 8 Appeals reversed, all invalid. (CA Fed. 1997). Four (1, 6, 7, 10) sold Because offered sale was under §102(b). That conclusion rested court's view as long "substantially complete at time sale," run, Id., 1434. (11 feature included 's initial but matter law additional itself patentable obvious addition art.7 Given holding, art Pfaff's claims. 9 courts have assumed cannot within meaning unless see, e. g., Timely Products Corp. v. Arron, 523 F.2d 288, 299 302 (CA2 1975); Dart Industries, Inc. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 1359, 1365, n. 11 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 417 933 (1974), text makes reference "substantial completion" invention, we certiorari. ___ (1998). II 10 primary word unquestionably refers inventor's conception rather physical embodiment idea. statute does contain any express requirement must can patented. Neither statutory definition term §1008 nor basic conditions obtaining set forth §1019 mention "reduction practice." statute's only specific found §102(g), which sets standard resolving priority contests between claimants subsection provides: "In determining there shall considered respective dates reduction also reasonable diligence who conceive last reduce from other." 12 Thus, assuming part applicant, normally inventor conceive, establishes 13 It well settled patented 1888, upheld Alexander Graham Bell constructing working telephone. Chief Waite's reasoning case merits quoting length: 14 "It quite true applied never actually transmitted telegraphically spoken words so could distinctly heard understood receiving end line, specification describe accurately admirable clearness process, say, exact electrical condition created accomplish purpose, described, sufficient precision enable ordinary skill such matters it, form apparatus which, way pointed out, would required effect, receive words, carry them deliver appointed place. particular instrument had, experiments, not, circumstances tried, reproduce spoken, clearly understood, proof abundant most convincing character, instruments, carefully constructed made exactly accordance specification, without additions whatever, operated will operate successfully. A good mechanic proper kind take and, following strictly, can, more, construct do claimed method process . 15 "The require discoverer inventor, get succeeded bringing highest degree perfection. enough describes skilled understand what is, points out some practicable putting into operation." Telephone Cases, 126 535 536 (1888).10 16 apply Cases facts us today, evident obtained novel accepted units. At description "sufficient matter" device. parties agree manufactured embody find concluding III 17 nevertheless argues longstanding precedent, buttressed strong interest providing inventors clear identifying onset period, justifies special interpretation are persuaded nontextual argument should rejected. 18 As often explained, recently Bonito Boats, Thunder Craft 141, 151 (1989), system represents crafted bargain encourages both creation public disclosure useful advances technology, return exclusive monopoly limited time. balance motivating innovation enlightenment rewarding protection hand, avoiding monopolies unnecessarily stifle competition other, federal laws since their inception. explained 1871: 19 "Letters regarded franchises improvements purpose securing them, inventors, therein mentioned, liberty use vend others own inventions, tending promote progress science arts, compensation labor, toil, expense same benefit, contemplated Constitution sanctioned Congress." Seymour Osborne, Wall. 516, 533 534. 20 Consistent these ends, §102 serves limiting provision, excluding ideas domain confining duration term. See, e.g., Frantz Mfg. Co. Phenix 457 314, 320 1972). 21 originally loses puts application. "His voluntary act acquiescence abandonment right" Pennock Dialogue, 24 (1829) (Story, J.). similar reluctance allow remove existing knowledge undergirds bar. 22 seeks perfect discovery conduct extensive testing losing obtain occurs eye. recognized distinction inventions put experimental products commercially. 1878, why patentability turn product. 23 sometimes said acquires undue advantage over delaying patent, inasmuch thereby preserves himself longer allowed policy law; justice delay occasioned bona fide effort bring perfection, ascertain answer intended. His continues allotted event; public, himself, properly tested, it. Any attempt profit, experiment, years application, deprive patent." Elizabeth Pavement 126, 137 (emphasis added). seek protect public's retain already control 1836, Stat. 117, expressly issuance Like earlier holding Pennock, provision precluded filed. 1839, Congress ameliorated enacting 2-year grace file 353. 25 Andrews Hovey, 123 267, 274 (1887), noted amendment "to fix limitation certain"; sure "within completion invention," ibid. 1939, year. 53 1212. 26 Petitioner correctly provisions identify definite rule timeliness depend complete" seriously undermines certainty.11 More-over, finds support statute. petitioner's calls question Appeals, persuade engraft element 27 refer complete, merely complete." ordinarily best complete. But just completion, follow every case. Indeed, demonstrate prove ready patenting practice.12 conclude, therefore, applies satisfied date. 28 First, subject offer sale. An timing doctrine, example, generated concerns about indefiniteness,13 perceive reason unmanageable uncertainty attend measures marketed acceptance made, character. 29 Second, patenting. least ways: date; descriptions sufficiently invention.14 second fully disclosed 30 thus fulfills essential succinctly stated Learned Hand: 31 "[I]t upon exploit competitively patenting; content either secrecy, legal monopoly." Metallizing Engineering Kenyon Bearing Auto Parts 153 520 1946). 32 judgment policies underlying scheme, including fact able using specifications demonstrates fact. Furthermore, contained elements country Accordingly, affirmed. Notes 33 1. "A "(b) printed publication foreign country, United States, ." U.S.C. § 102. 34 2. successfully performed. machine assembled adjusted used. manufacture completely manufactured. composition composed." Corona Cord Tire Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 358, 383 (1928). 3. deposition, counsel engaged colloquy Pfaff: 36 "Q. Now, [late 1980 early 1981] [sic] prototypes developed anything nature, embodiment? 37 "A. 38 drawing. Is correct? 39 Strictly Went drawing hard tooling. That's I my business. 40 'Boom-boom'? 41 You got 42 satisfied, obviously, you come up going go 'it works'? 43 know I'm doing, yes, time." 96 97. 44 4. Initial sales were: 45 1981 $350,0001982 $937,0001983 $2,800,0001984 $3,430,000 46 223. 47 5. USP. Q 2d 1366 (ND Ind. 1988). literally infringe based location sockets' conductive pins. 48 6. Initially entered summary favor reversed remanded trial issues dispute. See 514 1993). 49 7. Title 103 identically differences sought whole having pertains." 50 8. §100, "Definitions," states, "When title context otherwise "(a) 'invention' means 51 9. 101, "Inventions patentable," provides, "Whoever invents discovers machine, manufacture, matter, improvement thereof, therefor, requirements title." 52 10. This although claim apparently Milburn Davis-Bournonville 270 390, 401 402 (1926). 11. Federal Circuit multifactor, "totality circumstances" trigger Micro Chemical, Great Plains 1538, 1544 (1997) (stating that, 102(b), " 'all surrounding sell, stage development nature weighed section 102(b)' "); see UMC Electronics 816 647, 656 (1987) "does lend formulation precise requirements"). noted, "has criticized vague." Seal-Flex, Athletic Track Construction, 98 1318, 1323, (1996). 54 12. Several Court's decisions stating indicating invention's demonstrated phase. Os-borne, 552 (1871) ("Crude imperfect experiments confer patent; constitute party proceeded far idea embodied distinct form"); Clark Thread Willimantic Linen 140 481, (1891) (describing how continued alter thread winding 1858, "he visible shape machine. completed construction machine"); U.S., 382 need subsequently commercialized finished experimentation. great activity accelerator discovery, all, shown in-stances work, discovery"). 55 13. Rooklidge Jensen, Common Sense, Simplicity Experimental Use Negation Public Sale Bars Patentability, John Marshall L. Rev. (1995) "whether clear"). 56 14. Solicitor General argued governing phrased somewhat differently. opinion, "if embodies later sought, primarily renders unpatentable. Constr., 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Bryson, J., concurring result)." satisfying might aspect However, possibility counsels adoption proposed General.

Classification Label: 7