• Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. Solvay

on

  • 1,029 views

On October 13, 2010 the CAFC reversed a district court’s judgment that Solvay’s patent claims were invalid due to prior invention. The Solvay patent covered methods of making a chemical. ...

On October 13, 2010 the CAFC reversed a district court’s judgment that Solvay’s patent claims were invalid due to prior invention. The Solvay patent covered methods of making a chemical. Honeywell made the chemical in the US before the priority date of the Solvay patent, using a process invented by an entity in Russia with which Honeywell had entered into a research contract. It was undisputed that the process invented by the Russian team corresponded to the Solvay patent. Honeywell asserted the Solvay patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102(g)(2) because Honeywell was a prior inventor in the US. The CAFC concluded that Honeywell could not be “another inventor” for purposes of §102(g)(2) because it only reproduced the Russian team’s work and did not conceive of the invention itself.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,029
Views on SlideShare
1,029
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. Solvay Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. Solvay Presentation Transcript

  • November 2010 Alex ChartovePresented By © 2010 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved | www.mofo.com
  • 1. In a process for the preparation of [HFC-245fa] comprising reaction of [HCC-240fa] with [HF] in the presence of a hydrofluorination catalyst, the improvement which comprises carrying out the reaction at a temperature and under a pressure at which [HFC-245fa] is gaseous and isolating and [sic] [HFC-245fa] from the reaction mixture by drawing off [HFC-245fa] and [HCl] in a gaseous phase as each of said [HFC-245fa] and [HCl] is being formed. This is MoFo 2
  • 1994 • RSCAC and alleged infringer enter research contract • RSCAC conceives and reduces invention to practice in Russia • RSCAC sends report documenting methods and results to alleged infringer in US early 1995 • alleged infringer uses RSCAC information to replicate invention in US October 1995 • patentee files application (in France) 1996 • alleged infringer files US application for improvement invention This is MoFo 3
  • A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (g)(2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. This is MoFo 4
  • •patentee sues •on SJ, district court holds claims infringed but invalid under 102(g)(2) because alleged infringer made invention in US before October 1995 •patentee appeals to CAFC This is MoFo 5
  • ALLEGED INFRINGER’S ARGUMENT •RSCAC performed claimed process in Russia •RSCAC transmitted to alleged infringer in US complete instructions for claimed process •alleged infringer performed claimed process in US before priority date •“invention was made in this country” by alleged infringer before priority date •alleged infringer is “another inventor” under 102(g)(2) •purpose of 102(g)(2) is to grant patent to first inventor •patentee was not first to make invention in US This is MoFo 6
  • •alleged infringer did not invent claimed process but derived claimed process from RSCAC, who invented process in Russia •alleged infringer is not “another inventor” under 102(g)(2) because alleged infringer is not an “inventor” This is MoFo 7
  • •“the invention was made in this country” means the act of inventing in the US, not the act of making in the US •102(g)(2) prior inventorship is not established merely by showing that invention was reduced to practice in the US by someone other than patentee This is MoFo 8
  • •the formation, in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention •conception must be an original idea of the inventor •conception reproduction or derivation •102(g)(2) resolves priority disputes between independent, original inventors •102(g)(2) does not address derivation •alleged infringer did not conceive invention and consequently is not an inventor This is MoFo 9
  • •alleged infringer’s US patent for improved process is immaterial •invention at issue is invention claimed in patentee’s patent, not invention claimed in alleged infringer’s patent •critical point is that alleged infringer did not conceive invention in patentee’s patent, but derived it from RSCAC This is MoFo 10
  • alleged infringer: •it contradicts purpose of 102(g)(2) to award patent to patentee for subject matter that patentee was not first to invent CAFC: •issue is not whether patentee was first to invent •issue is whether alleged infringer established that invention was conceived and reduced to practice by “another inventor” in US before patentee •uncontested facts show alleged infringer failed to establish 102(g)(2) defense This is MoFo 11
  • •alleged infringer did not conceive invention at issue and therefore is not “another inventor” under 102(g)(2) CAFC: •reverses ruling that claims are invalid under 102(g)(2) •affirms ruling that claims are infringed •remands case to district court This is MoFo 12
  • In hindsight, how could alleged infringer win? •use US research company? •have one co-inventor in US? •file promptly in 1994? •assert invalidity under 102(a)? Is decision consistent with current globalization and outsourcing? This is MoFo 13