IP: Certain trade secrets are now exempt from patent infringement
A new law expands prior commercial use defense.
November 01, 2011 at 06:45 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The recently enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act expands the “prior commercial use” defense to patent infringement in order to benefit companies choosing to keep key technologies used in manufacturing and other commercial processes as trade secrets instead of protecting them with patents.
Although the defense cannot be used to invalidate a patent, it can prevent a new patentee from interfering in the continued practice of a technology developed well before the patentee invented it. Previously, the “commercial use” defense could only be asserted against business method patents.
Effective Sept. 16, 2011, any patent issued on or after that date is subject to the defense that an alleged infringer “commercially used” the subject matter of the patent in the U.S. more than one year prior to the earlier of the filing date of the patent or the date the claimed invention was publicly disclosed.The expanded defense covers all patent-eligible subject matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process.
The Act expands the definition of “commercial use” to include:
- Premarketing regulatory review, when the safety or efficacy of the subject matter is established
- Use by a nonprofit entity whose intended beneficiary is the public
Commercially used, abandoned and then used again technology cannot claim the benefit of the earlier use.
Also, there is a significant “University Exception”: the defense does not apply if the patented invention was “made, owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to an institution of higher education” or to an affiliated technology transfer organization. Thus, if the technology is in a field where university research is active, it remains subject to potential jeopardy.
Although the defense is personal to the entity that performed or directed performance of the “commercial use,” it may also be asserted by any entity that controls, is controlled by or under common control with the original entity. The defense is also transferable as part of a good-faith transfer with the whole line of business to which the defense relates.
Proving the defense will necessarily depend upon accurate record-keeping. For a technology commercially used in secret, the key will be to document the dates of use and the technical details of the technology actually used. If the technology evolves over time, updated records will be needed to protect the new iterations.
Given a patent damages window extending six years back in time, but not before the issue date of the patent, the retention period for those records should be carefully adjusted based on the particular circumstances.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250