The first U.S. Supreme Court patent-related decision of 2019 has confirmed the long standing rule that commercial exploitation of a patentable invention may bar the issuance of a patent in the U.S., even where there is no public disclosure of the invention!
Background
The facts of Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. are relatively simple. Helsinn Healthcare S.A., a Swiss pharma company, partnered with MGI Pharma, Inc. to market and distribute in the U.S. 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg doses of palonosetron, a treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Helsinn and MGI signed two agreements, each requiring MGI to keep all proprietary information confidential. The existence of the agreements was publicly announced.
In January 2003, nearly two years after the agreements were entered into, Helsinn filed a provisional patent application covering a .25 mg dose of palonosetron (the “‘219 Patent”). Over the next 10 years, Helsinn filed four patent applications that claimed priority dating back to January 2003. One of those patent applications was in respect of the ‘219 Patent and was filed in 2013.
The respondents, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, “Teva”), sought marketing approval for a generic version of palonosetron. Helsinn sued for infringement of the ‘219 Patent. Teva countered that the ‘219 Patent was invalid because the .25 mg dose was “on sale” more than one year before Helsinn filed the provisional patent application. This, they argued, contravened the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”), which generally precludes a person from obtaining a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” more than one year before the inventor filed an application for the patent.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the .25 mg dose was “on sale” within the meaning of the AIA provision, invalidating the ‘219 Patent. Specifically, it had to consider whether the catchall phrase “or otherwise available to the public” in the AIA provision modified the “on sale” bar in that provision. That is, would a “secret” sale (one where the invention was not publically disclosed) invalidate patentability? Notably, the catchall language was added to the AIA in 2011, though the “on sale” bar had existed in U.S. jurisprudence since the 1800s.
The District Court agreed with Helsinn that the catchall language modified earlier jurisprudence, holding the invention was not “on sale” unless the sale or offer was made to the public. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, concluding that the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed as long as a sale took place. The Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed the Federal Circuit decision, holding that a sale made before the one-year grace period can qualify to invalidate a patent even where the sale was not disclosed to the public.
Implications for U.S. Patents
To avoid a successful “on sale” attack, U.S. inventors and their attorneys should take care to avoid transactions and agreements regarding patentable inventions that could be interpreted as a “commercial sale or offer for sale”. This may prove difficult in practice given agreements regarding inventions are often entered into well before patent applications are filed (for example, in respect of clinical trials, manufacture of active ingredients for regulatory submissions, etc.).
Canadian Perspective
Paragraph 28.2(1)(a) of the Patent Act provides a “statutory bar” to the issuance of a patent in circumstances where the claimed invention in the patent application was disclosed more than one year before the filing date by the applicant in such a manner that the subject matter became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere.
The Federal Court of Appeal has held that, for the prior disclosure statutory bar to apply so as to prevent the issuance of a patent (or to invalidate a patent), there must be public use or public sale of the invention, anywhere in the world, that amounts to an enabling disclosure (Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. et al. v. Baker Petrolite Corp. et al., 2002 FCA 158). Enabling disclosure has been defined as disclosure that would allow a person skilled in the art to derive or reverse engineer the invention from the sold product without exercising inventive skill or undue burden.
Key Takeaway
Even though an “on sale” bar may preclude the issuance of a U.S. patent in the case of a “secret sale”, it may nonetheless be possible to obtain a Canadian patent for the invention if the sale or offer to sale is not an enabling disclosure. For example, a sale in the U.S. one year before the filing of the application under a non-disclosure agreement would likely trigger the “on sale” bar, while such a sale in Canada may not constitute enabling disclosure and thus not trigger the commencement of the one-year grace period.
Authors
Insights
-
Intellectual Property
Goodmans Wins Leading IP Law Firm – IP Patents at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024
We are proud to share Goodmans has won Leading IP Law Firm - IP Patents at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024. These awards celebrate outstanding achievements and world class client… -
Intellectual Property
Protecting Heads and the Ideas Inside: Yamaha’s Augmented Reality Helmet
A Yamaha patent application has been published for a new design of an augmented reality (AR) motorcycle helmet. The design introduces transparent lenses, which aim to combine the power of the AR… -
Intellectual Property
Bad Bunny Hops into Legal Battle Over Concert Clips
Bad Bunny has reportedly sued a concertgoer for uploading extensive footage of his Utah concert to YouTube. The legal action, filed in California, marks a rare escalation in disputes typically… -
Intellectual Property
Food for Thought: IP Battle Over Butter Chicken
The Delhi High Court reportedly had its initial hearing of Rupa Gujral and Ors v. Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited and Ors in early 2024. The plaintiff, a famous restaurant chain, Moti Mahal… -
Intellectual Property
Keeping Up With Counterfeits: Kim Kardashian Sued For Knock-Off Dining Tables
Kim Kardashian and her interior design firm, Clements Design, are reportedly being sued by the Judd Foundation for promoting “cheap knockoffs” of one of Judd’s most renowned designs, a dining table… -
Intellectual Property
Mbappé Attempts to Trademark Soccer Celebration Pose
French soccer star, Kylian Mbappé, has sought trademark protection over a logo depicting his iconic goal celebration. The logo is a black and white image of Mbappé standing with his hands tucked…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
FASHIONPHILE acquires Two Authenticators Business
Goodmans LLP acted for FASHIONPHILE, LLC in connection with its purchase of the assets of Two Authenticators Inc… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Minute Media acquires STN Video
Goodmans LLP acted for Minute Media, a leading global technology and sports content company, in relation to its acquisition of STN Video, a North American industry leader in sports content… -
Banking and Financial Services
Finastra Group $5.32 billion refinancing
Goodmans LLP acted for Finastra International Limited in the full refinancing of its existing credit facilities and restructuring of its capital structure… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Coinsquare, WonderFi and CoinSmart close business combination
Goodmans LLP acted for Coinsquare Ltd. in its business combination transaction with WonderFi Technologies Inc. and CoinSmart Financial Inc… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Docebo Inc. acquires Edugo.AI
Goodmans LLP acted for Docebo Inc. (“Docebo”) in its acquisition of Edugo.AI (“Edugo”), a Generative AI-based Learning Technology that uses advanced Large Language Models and algorithms to optimize…
News & Events
-
Intellectual Property
Goodmans Awarded at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024
We are proud to share Goodmans has won Leading IP Law Firm - IP Patents at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024. These awards celebrate outstanding achievements and world class client service… -
Technology
Goodmans Recognized in the Lexpert Special Edition: Technology and Health Sciences 2024
We are delighted to announce the Lexpert Special Edition: Technology and Health Sciences 2024 once again features Goodmans lawyers among Canada's top-ranked experts.Congratulations to… -
Intellectual Property
IAM Patent 1000 Continues to Honour Goodmans with Gold Tier Recognition
We are pleased to share the 2024 edition of IAM Patent 1000 has once again honoured Goodmans LLP with Gold tier recognition. Congratulations to our IP Group, and to the Goodmans lawyers…