Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
One of the requirements for patentability is that the invention being patented is “new” or “novel.” 35 U.S.C. Section 102 sets forth the novelty requirement of the patent law. 35 U.S.C Section 102(a) identifies the specific disclosures that can trigger the novelty bar, including situations in which “the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) then provides for a one-year grace period for disclosures made by the inventor, stating “a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention … if the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.” Thus, the “critical date” for disclosures made by the inventor is one year before the effective filing date, i.e., the earliest priority date, of the patent application directed toward that invention. Disclosures made before that date will destroy the novelty of the invention, therefore making the disclosed invention unpatenable.
The majority of novelty-triggering disclosures set forth in 35 U.S.C. Section 102 are public disclosures of the invention. However, the plain language of this statutory section does not appear to require that the “on sale” status of the invention is public to trigger the novelty bar. Put another way, while it is clear that an invention that is “patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use” was being disclosed to the public, the law does not appear to require that the “on sale” invention was actually disclosed to the public.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.