Page 8 - 2020 Policy Watch-Comparison of Secret Sale Patent
P. 8
icy Watch: Comparison between the US and China as to Whether a Secret Sale before the Date of Filing Affacts the Patent Application
The key point of Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. �eva Pharms. USA, Inc.�
USA, Inc. is to decide whether the sale of an invention ???????¨ä?认å?å°?????è´??çº??ä¹??对å???
to a third party who is contractually obligated to keep ä¿?????ä¸???????è¡?¸º???ç¬??§102(a)è§??
the invention confidential places the invention ??n �?�???????????�???
sale?? within the meaning of §102(a).
More than twenty years prior, the United States Su- äº??å¤?¹´???ç¾????é«???¢è?å®??å½???????
preme Court held that inventions were ??n sale?? within ?????è¡?¸º???äº??ä¸??????????å¤??äº??
the meaning of an earlier version of §102(a) when the ?©â???ï¼?????ç¬?????§102(a)对ä????????
act of ??n sale?? was ??he subject of a commercial offer ???ä¹???2æ³??å½??并æ?è¿??æ¥è?æ±???????ä¸?
for sale?? and ??eady for patenting.??2 The Court back ??????ç»?????äº??ä¸??©æ?è§??ï¼??æ¡?lar-
then did not further require that the sale make the de- ence Thomasæ³??认为ï¼?°½ç®?elsinn Healthcare
tails of the invention available to the public. In light of S.A.ä¸??å°¼è?è¾¾å??¶è????ç¾è?????¨ç??½é???
this earlier construction, the Justice Clarence Thomas ??????为没?????????�?�????�?�
of this case determined that the Congressional reenact- ????½å????æ¡?(??IA??)??¸????¶å????å®?
ment of the phrase ??n sale?? in the Leahy-Smith Ameri- ä¸?¹¶?????????????è¯??å®?????å°±æ?说ï???
ca Invents Act (??IA??) did not alter this meaning despite è§??沿ç?äº??????¸æ?è§?????åº??ï¼?????è´?
the fact that the act which Helsinn Healthcare S.A. en- ??º¦å®???¡å????ä¿?????ä¸???????è¡?¸ºç¬??
tered into agreements with a Minnesota pharmaceuti- ????½å????æ¡????äº????????????å®????
cal company to sell the drug in the United States does
not make the invention available to public. In other
words, the new provision adopted the earlier judicial
construction. Accordingly, a commercial sale to a third
party who is required to keep the invention confiden-
tial may place the invention ??n sale?? under the AIA.
2 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 67, 119 S. Ct. 2 Pfaff � Wells Electronics, Inc.�?525 U. S. 55, 67, 119
304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998) S. Ct. 304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998)
8
The key point of Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. �eva Pharms. USA, Inc.�
USA, Inc. is to decide whether the sale of an invention ???????¨ä?认å?å°?????è´??çº??ä¹??对å???
to a third party who is contractually obligated to keep ä¿?????ä¸???????è¡?¸º???ç¬??§102(a)è§??
the invention confidential places the invention ??n �?�???????????�???
sale?? within the meaning of §102(a).
More than twenty years prior, the United States Su- äº??å¤?¹´???ç¾????é«???¢è?å®??å½???????
preme Court held that inventions were ??n sale?? within ?????è¡?¸º???äº??ä¸??????????å¤??äº??
the meaning of an earlier version of §102(a) when the ?©â???ï¼?????ç¬?????§102(a)对ä????????
act of ??n sale?? was ??he subject of a commercial offer ???ä¹???2æ³??å½??并æ?è¿??æ¥è?æ±???????ä¸?
for sale?? and ??eady for patenting.??2 The Court back ??????ç»?????äº??ä¸??©æ?è§??ï¼??æ¡?lar-
then did not further require that the sale make the de- ence Thomasæ³??认为ï¼?°½ç®?elsinn Healthcare
tails of the invention available to the public. In light of S.A.ä¸??å°¼è?è¾¾å??¶è????ç¾è?????¨ç??½é???
this earlier construction, the Justice Clarence Thomas ??????为没?????????�?�????�?�
of this case determined that the Congressional reenact- ????½å????æ¡?(??IA??)??¸????¶å????å®?
ment of the phrase ??n sale?? in the Leahy-Smith Ameri- ä¸?¹¶?????????????è¯??å®?????å°±æ?说ï???
ca Invents Act (??IA??) did not alter this meaning despite è§??沿ç?äº??????¸æ?è§?????åº??ï¼?????è´?
the fact that the act which Helsinn Healthcare S.A. en- ??º¦å®???¡å????ä¿?????ä¸???????è¡?¸ºç¬??
tered into agreements with a Minnesota pharmaceuti- ????½å????æ¡????äº????????????å®????
cal company to sell the drug in the United States does
not make the invention available to public. In other
words, the new provision adopted the earlier judicial
construction. Accordingly, a commercial sale to a third
party who is required to keep the invention confiden-
tial may place the invention ??n sale?? under the AIA.
2 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 67, 119 S. Ct. 2 Pfaff � Wells Electronics, Inc.�?525 U. S. 55, 67, 119
304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998) S. Ct. 304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998)
8
