As a community service, an educational series by the

IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

Copyright 2010 The IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Index of Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

HOLDING: (1) The Court rejected a date based on when an invention is substantially complete in favor of a bright line test. (2) "Invention" refers to conception and there is no requirement for a reduction to practice. (3) The on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date. First, there must be a commercial offer for sale. The experimental use doctrine has not generated concerns. Second, the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied by proof of reduction to practice or by proof that the inventor had prepared descriptions that were sufficiently specific to enable a person to practice the invention.

PFAFF v. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. (November 10, 1998)

 

 

FACTS: Defendant contended that patent by Pfaff was invalid for violation of the on-sale bar. On April 8, 1981, Pfaff accepted an order for his chip socket and provided drawings to produce the device. On April 19, 1982, Pfaff filed his patent application.

Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

***

A Fast and Easy Way to Learn the High Points of Patent Law and Related Anti-trust Law

Community Service and

Pro Bono

In addition to this education series, Mr. Hoffenberg gives of his time to benefit the community and contribute to the quality justice in the State of California. For many years, he served as a volunteer pro tem in the Municipal Court in traffic, landlord-tenant, small claims and short cause matters. Currently, Mr. Hoffenberg serves as a volunteer arbitrator for the Dispute Resolution Service in attorney-client fee disputes and as a quasi-volunteer mediator in the Court of Appeals.