Federal Circuit: Private Sale by Inventor Does Not Trigger Prior Art Exception Under the AIA

March 24, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

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).

This appeal stemmed from an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Kaijet Technologies, in which it relied on a U.S. patent application (Kuo) as prior art in each of its asserted obviousness combinations. Sanho Corporation argued that Kuo was not prior art because the inventor of the challenged patent sold a product embodying the claimed invention before Kuo’s effective filing date. That is, Sanho argued that its prior sale fell within the public disclosure exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of the AIA. Under Section 102(b)(2)(B), “[prior patent filings by another] shall not be prior art to a claimed invention . . . if . . . the subject matter disclosed had . . . [already] been publicly disclosed by the inventor.” The Board rejected this argument, concluding that the sale did not constitute a public disclosure because it was never publicized, and nothing indicated the order was even fulfilled.

On appeal, Sanho argued that the private, non-confidential sale constituted a public disclosure because “publicly disclosed” in § 102 (b)(2)(B) should be construed to (1) encompass all “disclosure[s]” listed in § 102(a)(1) including when the invention is “on sale,” and (2) incorporate judicial interpretations of invalidating “public use” in § 102(a)(1) covering commercial uses. The Federal Circuit disagreed with both arguments.

First, the Federal Circuit distinguished the phrase “public disclosure” in Section 102(b)(2)(B) from the broader use of “disclosure” in Section 102, reasoning that if Congress intended “publicly disclosed” to mean the same thing as “disclosed” it would have just used the same word. But Congress used different language, and thus must have intended those phrases to have different meanings. The court further reasoned that the purpose of the public disclosure exception is only served if the invention is actually made available to the public—it protects those inventors who engage in the patent bargain by sharing their inventions with the public. Disqualifying prior art based on private sales would run contrary to that purpose because a private sale, without more, does not share the invention with the public.

As to the second argument, the Federal Circuit explained that the case law on invalidating public uses is distinguishable from the present case not only because “public use” and “publicly disclosed” are different terms, but also because they serve different purposes. The public use case law makes clear that a public use that does not disclose an invention to the public can still be invalidating prior art. The rationale being that commercial exploitation of an invention, whether public or private, should limit a patentee’s monopoly. But that rationale is distinct from the purposes of Section 102(b)(2)(B), which concerns whether it is fair to consider a subsequent patent filing by another prior art after an inventor has shared its invention with the public. The key factor there being that the inventor disclosed the relevant aspects of its invention to the public at-large. 

As to the facts of this case, the Federal Circuit found the evidence of public disclosure insufficient because there was no evidence that the sale disclosed the relevant aspects of the invention to the public. Despite presenting evidence that a non-confidential sale took place, Sanho did not offer any evidence that the inventive features were taught to anyone beyond the parties to the sale. Because the sale failed to meet the “publicly disclosed” requirement under Section 102(b)(2)(B), it did not disqualify Kuo as prior art.

Practice Tip: Patent holders asserting the AIA § 102(b)(2)(B) prior art exception to overcome prior art patent references must present evidence that the inventor made the invention available to the public broadly and not merely to a select few in private.

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.