Federal Circuit: On-Sale Bar Still Applies to Secret Use of a Patented Method Under AIA

September 9, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed an ITC holding that the AIA’s § 102 on-sale bar applies to the sale of a product made according to a secret process when that sale occurs more than one year before the patent’s effective filing date. In so doing, the court confirmed that, despite changes to the text of § 102, the AIA did not undo long-settled pre-AIA precedent that the on-sale bar applies when, before the critical date, a party sells products secretly made using a patented process.

Here, the Patentee argued before the ITC and the Federal Circuit that certain entities were infringing its patents directed to a process to make Ace-K, an artificial sweetener. It was undisputed that the patented process was in secret use in Europe more than one year before the effective filing date, i.e., before the critical date. It was also undisputed that the Patentee sold Ace-K in the United States using the secret process before the critical date. Based on these undisputed facts, the Accused Infringer filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under the on-sale bar because the Patentee sold products using the patented method more than one year before the effective filing date of the asserted patents. 

In response to the summary judgment motion, the Patentee agreed that the on-sale bar would apply and invalidate its claims under pre-AIA law. The Patentee, nevertheless, disputed whether the on-sale bar applied to such sales under the AIA. According to the Patentee, textual modifications made to § 102 in the AIA changed the law such that the on-sale bar does not apply to sales of a product when it is the process used to make that product that is the claimed invention. More specifically, the Patentee argued that because Congress amended the language of § 102 from “invention” in the pre-AIA statute to “claimed invention” in the AIA, the AIA on-sale bar can only be triggered when the thing that is sold is also what is claimed. And because the only sales made in this case were of the Ace-K product, not the claimed process, the on-sale bar should not apply in this case.  

The Federal Circuit rejected the Patentee’s argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 586 U.S. 123 (2019), which held that Congress reenacted the “on sale” language in the AIA. First, the court pointed to long-settled pre-AIA precedent showing that pre-critical date sales of products made using a secret process would trigger the on-sale bar. Next, the court considered the Patentee’s argument regarding the textual change in § 102 regarding a “claimed invention.” But the court found this argument unpersuasive. Because the Federal Circuit’s precedent often uses the terms “claimed invention” and “invention” interchangeably, it found Congress’s use of “claimed invention” in the AIA to be “no more than a clerical refinement of terminology for the same meaning in substance.” This conclusion was further supported by the rationale behind the on-sale bar, which exists to prevent someone from exploiting an invention commercially only to later seek patent protection for that invention, and effectively gain additional patent term.

Practice Tip: This case confirms that, as was the case pre-AIA, the AIA’s on-sale bar applies when there has been a pre-critical date sale of a product made according to a secret, later-patented process. Thus, inventors must be prepared to file for patent protection for both their product and their manufacturing process before engaging in potentially invalidating sales of a product made by an inventive process.

Celanese Intl. Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n, No. 2022-1827, 2024 WL 3747277 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.