直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Offices
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP Health Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Demonstration of Fully Functional Prototype at Industry Trade Show Renders Asserted Claims Invalid Under Public Use Bar

February 23, 2023

By Clinton P. Greub

Edited by Caitlin E. O'Connell; Esther H. Lim

In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 2021-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208 (“the ’208 patent”) are anticipated under the public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The ’208 patent is directed to surgical devices for endometrial ablation to stop or reduce abnormal uterine bleeding. After Minerva sued Hologic for infringement, Hologic moved for summary judgment of invalidity under the public use bar. Hologic argued that more than one year before the ’208 patent’s priority date, Minerva brought 15 fully functional prototypes to an industry event to showcase the device and that the device disclosed every limitation of the asserted claims. The district court granted Hologic’s motion finding that the display and demonstration of the prototypes at the trade show constituted public use, that the prototypes embodied the asserted claims, and that the prototypes showed the invention was ready for patenting.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting each of Minerva’s arguments. First, the Court found that Minerva’s disclosure of the prototypes at the trade show went “well beyond” “mere display.” Minerva provided a demonstration, which allowed the sophisticated members of the audience, who were under no confidentiality obligation, to determine how the prototypes worked. Second, based on testimony from the inventor and feedback from event participants, the Court found that the prototypes practiced each element of the asserted claims. And lastly, subsequent “fine tuning” cannot support a finding that the device was not ready for patenting where Minerva had reduced the invention to practice by creating working prototypes that embodied the claims. 

Tags

prior use (35 USC § 102)

Related Practices

Enforcement and Litigation

Appeals

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Medical Device and Diagnostics

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Clinton P. Greub
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4020
Email
Caitlin E. O'Connell
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4004
Email
Esther_Lim
Esther H. Lim
Partner & Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4121
Email

Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

21st Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents

May 18-19, 2023

New York

Conference

LESI Annual Conference

April 30, 2023 - May 2, 2023

Montreal

Workshop

Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Patent Law

April 27, 2023

Cambridge

Webinar

No Laughing Matter: What the Intersection of Humor, the Lanham Act and the First Amendment Means for Brand Owners

April 25, 2023

Webinar

Conference

2023 FCBA Global Series Spring Session

April 20, 2023

Washington

Webinar

IP Due Diligence - Everything You Need To Know

March 30, 2023

Webinar

European IP Blog

The Implausibility of “Plausibility” as an Evidentiary Standard at the EPO

March 24, 2023

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Widening Circuit Split, Eleventh Circuit Decides Retroactive Damages Are Recoverable for Timely Copyright Claims

March 22, 2023

Panel Discussion

Women’s History Month Celebration - Reflections on 50 Years of Title IX in Athletics and Beyond

March 22, 2023

Hybrid

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

The Finnegan UPC Hub is a one-stop shop for our insights related to the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Finnegan
Click Here
  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP