Federal Circuit Requires Actual Commercial Marketing of an Invention to Trigger the On-Sale Bar Under § 102(b)

Jul 21, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The case involved two patents owned by the Medicines Company (“MedCo”). The patents include product and product-by-process claims. Defendant Hospira Inc. (“Hospira”) sought approval to sell generic drug products covering the drug Angiomax, which is covered by the patents-in-suit. MedCo sued Hospira, claiming patent infringement. Hospira asserted that MedCo had contracted with Ben Venue, a third-party laboratory, to manufacture commercial quantities of the drug more than one year before the filing date of the patents-in-suit, thus triggering the on-sale bar under § 102(b). Hospira claimed that the manufacturing contract allowed MedCo to stockpile products, which constituted a commercial benefit. Hospira also alleged that MedCo’s distribution agreement with another third party also triggered the on-sale bar. Although MedCo entered into this distribution agreement before the critical date under § 102(b), no sale took place under the contract before the critical date.

The district court found that the on-sale bar did not apply. It held that under the Supreme Court’s Pfaff v. Wells Elecs, Inc. decision, the on-sale bar applies only if the claimed invention was (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) ready for patenting. The district court found that the contract manufacturer made the drugs for experimental purposes only so that the on-sale bar did not apply. It also held that the distribution agreement was an agreement to sell and did not constitute an invalidating sale.

The first Federal Circuit panel reversed, finding that MedCo commercially exploited the invention before the critical date. The first panel also found that the district court should not have applied the experimental use exception to the on-sale bar because the invention had already been reduced to practice.

The Federal Circuit subsequently granted rehearing en banc, and reversed the previous panel’s decision. Specifically, it held that the transaction between MedCo and Ben Venue did not constitute commercial sales of the patented product. It explained that mere sale of a manufacturing service by a contract manufacturer to create embodiments for the inventor does not constitute a “commercial sale.” Here, Ben Venue acted as only a pair of laboratory hands to reduce MedCo’s invention to practice. It never had any title or freedom to use or sell the claimed products. Further, the court explained that merely receiving a commercial benefit, such as stockpiling the patented drugs, is not enough to trigger the on-sale bar. According to the court, MedCo’s stockpiling was a pre-commercial activity. Instead, a transaction triggering the on-sale bar must be an actual commercial marketing of the invention. Reaching the conclusion that no commercial sale or offer for sale took place, the court affirmed the district court’s decision that MedCo’s actions did not trigger the on-sale bar. The court did not rule on the remaining issue of whether the experimental use exception to the on-sale bar applies.

The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504 (July 11, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.