Insights

Experimental-use agreements: tips to avoid on-sale bar to patentability

Experimental-use agreements: tips to avoid on-sale bar to patentability

Sep 15, 2022
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Summary

Associate LiJen Shen and Partners Cory Smith and George Chen authored an article published Sept. 14 in Law360 concerning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently revisiting the application of the experimental-use exception to the on-sale bar to patentability.

In Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture Inc.,[1] the court found that the experimental-use exception did not apply for two reasons.

First, the transaction was a commercial sale of the patented equipment, even though the transaction did not include a payment requirement for the equipment, because the transaction for the equipment was related to a commitment by the same purchaser to pay for something other than the equipment.

Second, the testing of the equipment that was alleged to support the experimental-use exception to the sale of the equipment was not necessary to show that the equipment worked because, among other things, subsequent sales of the equipment — that were not alleged to be experimental use — also included the same testing of the equipment.

The article continues with sections on best practices for satisfying the experimental-use exception to the on-sale bar.

Read the full article in Law360.

Related Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property and Technology Disputes

Meet The Team

Meet The Team

Meet The Team

This material is not comprehensive, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice. Your use or receipt of this material does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. If you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney regarding your particular circumstances. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This material may be “Attorney Advertising” under the ethics and professional rules of certain jurisdictions. For advertising purposes, St. Louis, Missouri, is designated BCLP’s principal office and Kathrine Dixon (kathrine.dixon@bclplaw.com) as the responsible attorney.