You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. View Engineering, Inc., and General Scanning, Inc., Defendants-Cross

Citations: 249 F.3d 1307; 58 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1723; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8479; 2001 WL 473839Docket: 00-1343

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; May 7, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves Robotic Vision Systems, Inc.'s appeal against a decision from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which invalidated claim 1 of its patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) due to the on-sale bar. The patent pertains to a method for scanning integrated circuits in trays, enhancing efficiency. The district court initially found the invention was sold before the critical date of June 24, 1991, and failed to disclose the best mode. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity based on the on-sale provision, focusing on whether the invention was ready for patenting before the critical date. The court found the invention was sufficiently disclosed to enable practice by a skilled person, dismissing the inventor's skepticism as irrelevant under the Pfaff standard. The court concluded the invention was ready for patenting before the critical date, confirming the patent's invalidity. The cross-appeal on the best mode issue was rendered moot. Hence, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's decision, maintaining the invalidation of the patent claim due to the on-sale bar.

Legal Issues Addressed

Best Mode Requirement

Application: The district court's summary judgment on the grounds of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode was reversed, indicating that this issue did not warrant the patent's invalidation.

Reasoning: The court reversed the district court's summary judgment on the grounds of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode and vacated the summary judgment regarding the on-sale bar.

Conception and Reduction to Practice

Application: The court concluded that the invention was reduced to practice by the critical date, with sufficient code available to practice the claimed method.

Reasoning: Ultimately, the court concluded that the invention was reduced to practice by May 22, 1991, with sufficient code in place for the 'column and row' method.

On-Sale Bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Application: The court applied the on-sale bar by determining that Robotic's invention was both commercially offered for sale and ready for patenting before the critical date, thereby invalidating the patent claim.

Reasoning: The Federal Circuit upheld the district court's decision, affirming the invalidity based on the on-sale bar.

Pfaff Standard for On-Sale Bar

Application: The court applied the Pfaff standard, requiring that an invention must be both commercially offered for sale and ready for patenting, which includes complete conception and enabling disclosure.

Reasoning: However, the Pfaff ruling shifted the standard from 'substantially complete' to requiring a complete conception of the invention for the on-sale bar to apply.

Readiness for Patenting

Application: The court found the invention ready for patenting as it was sufficiently disclosed to enable a skilled person to practice it, thereby satisfying the requirement for readiness.

Reasoning: The court determined that this level of disclosure satisfied the requirement for readiness for patenting, aligning with the Supreme Court's criteria that proof can include descriptions or drawings enabling practice of the invention.

Role of Inventor's Skepticism

Application: The court discounted the relevance of the inventor's skepticism about the invention's functionality in determining patent readiness.

Reasoning: The district court correctly discounted evidence of an inventor's skepticism regarding the invention's efficacy, as it does not pertain to the Pfaff standard.