Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the Sale Is Public

May 8, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

More than one year before the filing date of the patents, Helsinn entered into a purchase agreement with a third party to distribute a chemotherapy-related drug. Certain aspects of the agreement were made public in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, but the details of the invention were redacted. Helsinn was eventually granted four patents on the chemotherapy-related drug, including one post-AIA patent (the “’219 patent”). The district court, however, held that, although there was a sale, it did not trigger the on-sale bar on the ’219 patent because § 102 under the AIA now “requires a public sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention.”1  The district court stated that, to be “public” under the AIA, the sale must publicly disclose the details of the patented invention.

The Federal Circuit disagreed and reversed the decision. First, the court recognized that there were no statements by Congress that, under the AIA, “the sale or offer documents must themselves publicly disclose the details of the claimed invention before the critical date.” Notably, even if Congress intended to overrule “secret or confidential” sales, it discussed only cases that were “concerned entirely with whether the existence of the sale or offer was public,” not whether the invention itself was publicly disclosed. The Federal Circuit held that by including “otherwise available to the public” in the AIA, Congress intended that “the public sale itself would put the patented product in the hands of the public.” Here, it was undisputed that the existence of Helsinn’s purchase agreement (i.e., the sale) was public, which the Federal Circuit found met any “public” requirement under the AIA.

Second, the Federal Circuit emphasized that “[r]equiring such a disclosure as a condition of the on-sale bar would work as a foundational change in the theory of the statutory on-sale bar.” The court cited a litany of its cases that explicitly rejected any “requirement that the details of the invention be disclosed in the terms of sale.” The court then relied on the primary purpose of the on-sale bar: “publically offering a product for sale that embodies the claimed invention that places it in the public domain, regardless of when or whether actual delivery occurs.”

Ultimately, the Federal Circuit declined to “decide this case more broadly than necessary.” Notably, the court concluded that, “after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in the terms of the sale.” The court refused to “find that distribution agreements will always be invalidating under § 102(b),” but instead found that the particular supply agreement at issue was invalidating.                    

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 2016-1284, 2016-1787 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2017)


1 On the three pre-AIA patents, the district court held that there was a sale, but that the sale did not trigger the on-sale bar because the invention was not “ready for patenting” at the time of the sale.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.