On 11 July 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
issued an unanimous en banc ruling in the The Medicines Company v. Hospira Inc.
case that the mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract
manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented
product for the inventor is no ground for invalidity under the
In US patent law, the on-sale bar is a limitation on
patentability codified in 35 U.S.C. § 102. It provides that an
invention cannot be patented if it has been for sale before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention. In 2011, as part of
the America Invents Act (AIA), US Congress amended 35 U.S.C. §
102. The pre-AIA Version of the statute that was applicable in the
Court of Appeals' case read that "[a] person shall be
entitled to a patent unless," inter alia, "the
invention was [...] in public use or on sale in this country, more
than one year prior to the date of the application for
The Court of Appeals concluded that, "to be 'on
sale' under § 102(b), a product must be the subject of a
commercial sale [...] that bears the general hallmarks of a sale
pursuant to Section 2-106 of the Uniform Commercial Code."
However, the use of third-party services to manufacture the
patented products was not the type of commercial activity with
which the on-sale bar is concerned. The Court of Appeals agreed
that applying the on-sale bar to outsource manufacturing
"would only make the drug development process more costly,
punish efficient use of resources, and deter future investments in
innovation." There was no room in the statute to penalize a
company for relying, by choice or by necessity, on the confidential
services of a contract manufacturer, instead of manufacturing
Originally published July 21, 2016
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the
"Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are:
Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales
number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France;
Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated
entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian
law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer
Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the
Mayer Brown Practices in their respective
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments
on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not
a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Victoria Plumbing had been using VICTORIAN PLUMBING in parallel to Victoria Plum's use of VICTORIA PLUMB, for 15 years. Both parties had been using their respective marks for retail of bathroom products.
The UK Patents Court (Birss J) has recently heard the trial of the FRAND licence royalty case in Unwired Planet v Huawei & Samsung and a written decision is expected in early 2017 unless the case settles.
In this case the General Court (GC) confirmed that sound marks need to be in tune with distinctive character to achieve registration.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).