Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

[Skybuck Flying]

Hi,

I have a simply question really.

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products well
before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. ( But kept
it secret from competitors )

Assuming both parties have capable lawyers Who would win this lawsuit the
inventor/patent holder or the manufacturer ?

I think if the manufacturer can prove that the products were produced and
sold well before the patent filing he should win easily...

So this is just a reality check

Does it work like that in reality or is reality screwed up lol ?

I would like to ask this question in a law newsgroup... but the closest
thing I found was law.court which seems kinda dead ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[JeffM]

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.
Skybuck Flying

http://www.google.com/search?q=definerior+art

 

[Joerg]

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Winfield Hill]

Skybuck Flying wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. (But
kept it secret from competitors )

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info. I
suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product. This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

The term for being allowed to continue to manufacture, without paying a
royalty, is "shop right".

The patent system exists to encourage people to publish their
inventions.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7ag506p1@drn.newsguy.com...

Skybuck Flying wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. (But
kept it secret from competitors )

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info. I

Why not ?

It's no longer a trade secret, somebody else has re-invented it.

The manufacturer could step forward and disclose their trade secret.

The secret is in the products itself which is prove of prior art yet nobody
noticed it

By disclosing their trade secret they should be able to prove that they are
infact the original inventors.

Surely that has to count for something in court

Preferrably invalidating the patent

suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product. This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

I remain skeptical

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1123498079.241561.161330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

The term for being allowed to continue to manufacture, without paying a
royalty, is "shop right".

Ok "shop right" seems to be limited too when there is a employer, employee
relation ship ?

http://www.uspatent.com/ipoc.htm

What if the manufacturer and the re-inventor are too completely
independant/seperate entities

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:S2GJe.1778$zr1.1718@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed.

Yes, you right about this one according to this website

http://www.yale.edu/ocr/invent_guidelines/patent_vs_trade_secret.html

Usually it's the same if the disputed technology had merely been published
before filing.

Ok, so you mean the manufacturer is using a secret technology before it was
published ?

Same outcome... since manufacturer is original inventor

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Joerg wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive patenting.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd75qh$j9v$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...

Hi,

I have a simply question really.

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well
before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. ( But
kept
it secret from competitors )

Assuming both parties have capable lawyers Who would win this lawsuit
the
inventor/patent holder or the manufacturer ?

I think if the manufacturer can prove that the products were produced
and
sold well before the patent filing he should win easily...

So this is just a reality check

Does it work like that in reality or is reality screwed up lol ?

I would like to ask this question in a law newsgroup... but the closest
thing I found was law.court which seems kinda dead ?

Bye,
Skybuck.
The key is whether the previous use was 'obvious'. If the actual

application was different, and details of how the work was done, have not
been published, then the patent can still succeed, _but_ a patent only
covers the uses for which it claims utility.
So if (for instance), you have a circuit design, that allows encryption of
a data pattern for voice transmission, and apply for a patent, for this
circuit and voice transmission, then a few years latter somebody tries to
disprove the patent, by pointing out that the same circuit was used for
video applications, before the application was made, the patent will still
be upheld, _but_ the patent will allways only apply to the uses for which
it was granted.
So, 'some product', has to change to being 'some product that performs the
same basic function', for the inventor to be able to sue in the first
place, and if the manufacturer of the other product has not 'published' in
some form, then _he_ has to prove that the design was implicitly obvious
in what the device did. If the system could have been achieved by a number
of different methods, he will fail in this. This is why 'publication' is
important in patent law. The design also has to be 'available to the
public'. So if (for instance), this was part of a telephone exchange, and
this was kept inside the buildings, and maintained by service companies
provided by the supplier, the product will not be deemed to be 'prior
art'. The same would apply to components inside a device, even if this
went on sale to the public, if the presence of these parts was not
obvious...

Best Wishes

 

[Skybuck Flying]

I have another question about patents.

On this website it says the following:

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

This text was probably copied from some kind of law text

"
C. Defining the invention; possible stages of
"invention":
1. Conception: formation of a definite idea.

2. Research and development: diligence may be important if first to nceive
of an invention, but not first to reduce the idea of practice.

3. Reduction to practice: actual embodiment or practicing of the invention;
the filing of a patent application is considered constructive reduction to
practice since applications must describe an enabled, operative invention.
"

I wonder what this means.... especially number 3.

Does this mean a patent is only valid or accepted if the invention is
already being used ? (For example a prototype ?) Or are all three stages
allowed ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

I have another question about patents.

On this website it says the following:

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

This text was probably copied from some kind of law text

"
C. Defining the invention; possible stages of
"invention":
1. Conception: formation of a definite idea.

2. Research and development: diligence may be important if first to nceive
of an invention, but not first to reduce the idea of practice.

3. Reduction to practice: actual embodiment or practicing of the
invention;
the filing of a patent application is considered constructive reduction to
practice since applications must describe an enabled, operative invention.
"

I wonder what this means.... especially number 3.

Does this mean a patent is only valid or accepted if the invention is
already being used ? (For example a prototype ?) Or are all three stages
allowed ?

Hmm I think the next section is clear on that...

"
D. Inventorship, co-inventors, and ownership of
patent rights:

1. An inventor includes any natural person who conceives an operative
invention; not mereimplementation of another's ideas.
"

It says operative invention ? hmmm.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Winfield Hill wrote:

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info.

Trade secrets are only protected against wrongful appropriation. 35
U.S.C. 102(g) allows for patentability of an invention derived by
independent discovery or reasonable reverse engineering of a
pre-existing invention that has been "concealed" by another inventor.

I
suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product.

Partially true- but in some cases they may lose the right to manufacture
the product altogether:

quote

9. In the area of hardware patents, Kodak lost a patent lawsuit by
Polaroid involving patents involving instant film technology and was
forced to remove its instant film products from the market and pay a
very large amount of money to Polaroid.

10. Honeywell Inc. was involved in a lawsuit with Litton Industries and
was apparently obligated to pay $1.2 billion to Litton for patent
infringement of an airplane guidance system. If treble damages are
awarded the case will get into real money. However, on appeal, the judge
can reduce the award, but there is still a serious financial penalty.

end quote

This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

Not necessarily- trade secrets may make sense when the invention is
unpatentable, the estimate of re-invention time by a competitor is
longer than patent protection, cost and other considerations. See:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Trade_Secrets/Trade_Secrets.html
for an economic analysis. It's all a gamble and there is no "best" way
to go in many cases.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7f4a0ipe@drn.newsguy.com...

Joerg wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology
Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained
within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in
brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the
reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive
patenting.

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

Let's see that text has a section about this:

"
Bars preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

2. Pre-invention conduct. before the applicant's invention, another:

a. has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.;
"

I think the "bars" means here "rules"

And sentence 2 and a have to be attached to each other so the text could
read as follows:

"
Rules preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

2. Before the applicant's invention, another person/inventor has public use
or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.;
"

It says "public use" of the invention.

So I guess this means the manufacturer is allowed to publicly use an
invention even if it's not publicly known

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42F74B67.9060105@nospam.com...

Winfield Hill wrote:


This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info.

Trade secrets are only protected against wrongful appropriation. 35
U.S.C. 102(g) allows for patentability of an invention derived by
independent discovery or reasonable reverse engineering of a
pre-existing invention that has been "concealed" by another inventor.

In (a) the law says otherwise but then in your part (g) that could be an
exception.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

At page 102 (top left corner)

"
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented
or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
"

These are only conditions...

So a lawyer could say:

"The patent should not have been granted in the first place".

But your text is from this section:

"
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or
section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent
permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the
invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or
concealed, or (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.
"

But this section is too complex for me to understand at the moment...
complex words and sentences and references to other sections...

But this could be an exception to (a)

I
suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product.

Partially true- but in some cases they may lose the right to manufacture
the product altogether:

quote

9. In the area of hardware patents, Kodak lost a patent lawsuit by
Polaroid involving patents involving instant film technology and was
forced to remove its instant film products from the market and pay a
very large amount of money to Polaroid.

10. Honeywell Inc. was involved in a lawsuit with Litton Industries and
was apparently obligated to pay $1.2 billion to Litton for patent
infringement of an airplane guidance system. If treble damages are
awarded the case will get into real money. However, on appeal, the judge
can reduce the award, but there is still a serious financial penalty.

end quote

Well we would have to know the details eh ?

This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

Not necessarily- trade secrets may make sense when the invention is
unpatentable, the estimate of re-invention time by a competitor is
longer than patent protection, cost and other considerations. See:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Trade_Secrets/Trade_Secrets.html
for an economic analysis. It's all a gamble and there is no "best" way
to go in many cases.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42F74B67.9060105@nospam.com...


Winfield Hill wrote:


This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info.

Trade secrets are only protected against wrongful appropriation. 35
U.S.C. 102(g) allows for patentability of an invention derived by
independent discovery or reasonable reverse engineering of a
pre-existing invention that has been "concealed" by another inventor.

In (a) the law says otherwise but then in your part (g) that could be an
exception.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

At page 102 (top left corner)

"
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented
or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
"

These are only conditions...

So a lawyer could say:

"The patent should not have been granted in the first place".

But your text is from this section:

"
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or
section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent
permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the
invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed,
or
concealed, or

Ok I think (1) only applies to an interference... meaning somebody else has
also filed for patent and it's still pending etc or conflicting with an
unexpired patent etc...

So this doesn't apply to a trade secret I guess

(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

dictionary.com is not working at the moment... what does diligence mean ?

one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time
prior to conception by the other.
"

It does say the following line:

"In determining priority of invention under this subsection"

So the question is if (a) is more important than (g).

If that is the case then (a) wins and that means the patent can not be
granted or is invalid since it was already in use

I
suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding
the
original product.

Partially true- but in some cases they may lose the right to manufacture
the product altogether:

quote

9. In the area of hardware patents, Kodak lost a patent lawsuit by
Polaroid involving patents involving instant film technology and was
forced to remove its instant film products from the market and pay a
very large amount of money to Polaroid.

10. Honeywell Inc. was involved in a lawsuit with Litton Industries and
was apparently obligated to pay $1.2 billion to Litton for patent
infringement of an airplane guidance system. If treble damages are
awarded the case will get into real money. However, on appeal, the judge
can reduce the award, but there is still a serious financial penalty.

end quote

Well we would have to know the details eh ?

This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

Not necessarily- trade secrets may make sense when the invention is
unpatentable, the estimate of re-invention time by a competitor is
longer than patent protection, cost and other considerations. See:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Trade_Secrets/Trade_Secrets.html
for an economic analysis. It's all a gamble and there is no "best" way
to go in many cases.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <dd7it4$bt4$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, nospam@hotmail.com
says...

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7f4a0ipe@drn.newsguy.com...
Joerg wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology
Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained
within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in
brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the
reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive
patenting.

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

Let's see that text has a section about this:

"
Bars preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

2. Pre-invention conduct. before the applicant's invention, another:

a. has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.;
"

I think the "bars" means here "rules"

Bar == obstruction

From Webster on-line:

2 : something that obstructs or prevents passage, progress, or action:
as a : the destruction of an action or claim in law; also : a plea or
objection that effects such destruction b : an intangible or
nonphysical impediment c : a submerged or partly submerged bank (as of
sand) along a shore or in a river often obstructing navigation

--
Keith

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newslHJe.11781$n97.6473@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd75qh$j9v$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
Hi,

I have a simply question really.

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well
before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. ( But
kept
it secret from competitors )

Assuming both parties have capable lawyers Who would win this lawsuit
the
inventor/patent holder or the manufacturer ?

I think if the manufacturer can prove that the products were produced
and
sold well before the patent filing he should win easily...

So this is just a reality check

Does it work like that in reality or is reality screwed up lol ?

I would like to ask this question in a law newsgroup... but the closest
thing I found was law.court which seems kinda dead ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

The key is whether the previous use was 'obvious'. If the actual
application was different, and details of how the work was done, have not
been published, then the patent can still succeed, _but_ a patent only
covers the uses for which it claims utility.

From the manufacturer point of view this is irrelevant.

So if (for instance), you have a circuit design, that allows encryption of
a data pattern for voice transmission, and apply for a patent, for this
circuit and voice transmission, then a few years latter somebody tries to
disprove the patent, by pointing out that the same circuit was used for
video applications, before the application was made, the patent will still
be upheld, _but_ the patent will allways only apply to the uses for which
it was granted.

Irrelevant to this discussion there is no patent yet.

So, 'some product', has to change to being 'some product that performs the
same basic function', for the inventor to be able to sue in the first
place, and if the manufacturer of the other product has not 'published' in
some form, then _he_ has to prove that the design was implicitly obvious
in what the device did. If the system could have been achieved by a number
of different methods, he will fail in this. This is why 'publication' is
important in patent law.

Where does the law say that ?

The manufacturer could prove two things:

1. He used the same technology, in that case the patent is invalid see down
below unless you can find law which says otherwise.

or

2. He used a different technology thereby not violating any patents.

The design also has to be 'available to the
public'. So if (for instance), this was part of a telephone exchange, and
this was kept inside the buildings, and maintained by service companies
provided by the supplier, the product will not be deemed to be 'prior
art'.

Where does the law say that ?

The same would apply to components inside a device, even if this
went on sale to the public, if the presence of these parts was not
obvious...

What I have found so far in the law is:

"
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
"

"Used by others" could mean anything.

It could mean used to make a product work.

I will repeat this sentence over and over again until you disprove it with
links to law which states otherwise

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Geoff]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:16:17 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:S2GJe.1778$zr1.1718@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor since he
invented something that already existed.

Yes, you right about this one according to this website

http://www.yale.edu/ocr/invent_guidelines/patent_vs_trade_secret.html

From your text citation above:

"Although United States patent applications are kept in confidence, all
information in a patent becomes available to the public when the patent is
eventually published. At that time, the trade secret status of any information
disclosed in a patent is lost. Conversely, according to US law, public use or
sale of an invention for more than one year abolishes the patentability of the
invention. Sale of a product produced by a secret process is considered to be a
public use of the process."

Under your conditions the patent is invalid.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6126bb46cbfbc5989b5e@news.individual.net...

In article <dd7it4$bt4$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, nospam@hotmail.com
says...

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7f4a0ipe@drn.newsguy.com...
Joerg wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use
technology
Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor
since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if
the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained
within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in
brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying
the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a
publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the
reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive
patenting.

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

Let's see that text has a section about this:

"
Bars preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

2. Pre-invention conduct. before the applicant's invention, another:

a. has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.;
"

I think the "bars" means here "rules"

Bar == obstruction

From Webster on-line:

2 : something that obstructs or prevents passage, progress, or action:

Yes so in this context something=rules or law

as a : the destruction of an action or claim in law; also : a plea or
objection that effects such destruction b : an intangible or
nonphysical impediment c : a submerged or partly submerged bank (as of
sand) along a shore or in a river often obstructing navigation

Bye,
Skybuck.