直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • 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

Authored and Edited by Clinton P. Greub; Caitlin E. Fowler; 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

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court 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
Esther H. Lim
Partner and Chief Community 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

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Articles

When the Classroom Goes Dark: Lessons from the Canvas Breach for Corporate Cyber Preparedness

July 8, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP