STATEMENT OF FACTS We are representing Mr. Karl Eriksen in his patent infringement action against Mr. Eugene Richards and Flat Black Motorcycles. Mr. Richards is alleging that Mr. Eriksen’s patent is invalid because it was in public use more than one year before the patent’s effective filing date. Mr. Eriksen is the proprietor of Dead Center Cycles in Seattle, Washington. He is the inventor of the Easy Connect Motorcycle Fairing Bracket (Easy Connect Bracket), which is a mounting system that allows a motorcycle fairing to be installed, removed, or replaced more easily than typically mounted fairings. A fairing is a shell placed over the upper front portion of a motorcycle and may or may not have a windshield. Dead Center Cycles is a large
…show more content…
See, e.g., Netscape, 295 F.3d at 1321-23; Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc., 982 F.2d 494, 497-99 (Fed. Cir. 1992). For example, in Netscape, the patentee disclosed his software invention to two computer personnel at the University of California and gave them free and open access to the program at one of their workstations. The court found that this disclosure was an invalidating public use because the inventor failed to discuss a requirement of confidentiality and failed to maintain control over the invention’s use. 295 F.3d at 1321-22. Similarly, in Sinskey, the court held that the patentee’s act of surgically installing his invented intraocular lenses into patients established public use because he charged a fee and there was no discussion of confidentiality. 982 F.2d at …show more content…
See, e.g., Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376, 1380-85 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TP Labs., 724 F.2d at 968-73. For instance, in Motionless Keyboard, the patentee held viewing demonstrations of his invented keyboard and had one user perform a typing test. 486 F.3d at 1378-79. The user performing the typing test signed an NDA; the potential investors who observed the demonstrations also signed NDAs, although some of them expired before the critical date. Id. at 1379. The court held that the demonstrations and typing test were not public use because the NDAs established an expectation of confidentiality and the invention was not used its intended way except during the typing test. Id. at 1380-85. As another example, in TP Labs., the plaintiff was a group of orthodontists who held a patent for a orthodontic invention that was tested over the course of three patients’ treatments. 724 F.2d at 966-68. The court held that this use was not public because TP Laboratories kept detailed treatment records and that, although there was no discussion of confidentiality, it was beyond reasonable probability that one of the patients would show the device to others skilled in the art. Id. at
See, e.g., Netscape, 295 F.3d at 1321-23; Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc., 982 F.2d 494, 497-99 (Fed. Cir. 1992). For example, in Netscape, the patentee disclosed his software invention to two computer personnel at the University of California and gave them free and open access to the program at one of their workstations. The court found that this disclosure was an invalidating public use because the inventor failed to discuss a requirement of confidentiality and failed to maintain control over the invention’s use. 295 F.3d at 1321-22. Similarly, in Sinskey, the court held that the patentee’s act of surgically installing his invented intraocular lenses into patients established public use because he charged a fee and there was no discussion of confidentiality. 982 F.2d at …show more content…
See, e.g., Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376, 1380-85 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TP Labs., 724 F.2d at 968-73. For instance, in Motionless Keyboard, the patentee held viewing demonstrations of his invented keyboard and had one user perform a typing test. 486 F.3d at 1378-79. The user performing the typing test signed an NDA; the potential investors who observed the demonstrations also signed NDAs, although some of them expired before the critical date. Id. at 1379. The court held that the demonstrations and typing test were not public use because the NDAs established an expectation of confidentiality and the invention was not used its intended way except during the typing test. Id. at 1380-85. As another example, in TP Labs., the plaintiff was a group of orthodontists who held a patent for a orthodontic invention that was tested over the course of three patients’ treatments. 724 F.2d at 966-68. The court held that this use was not public because TP Laboratories kept detailed treatment records and that, although there was no discussion of confidentiality, it was beyond reasonable probability that one of the patients would show the device to others skilled in the art. Id. at