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. 诉Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.案
USA, Inc. is to decide whether the sale of an invention 的关键点在于认定将发明向负有约定义务对发明
to a third party who is contractually obligated to keep 保密的第三方销售的行为是否符合§102(a)规定
the invention confidential places the invention “on 中对于发明“销售”的定义。
sale” within the meaning of §102(a).
More than twenty years prior, the United States Su- 二十多年前，美国最高法院认定，当发明“销
preme Court held that inventions were “on sale” within 售”的行为“属于商业销售”且“准备授予专
the meaning of an earlier version of §102(a) when the 利”时，该发明符合原先§102(a)对于“销售”
act of “on sale” was “the subject of a commercial offer 的定义。2法院当时并未进一步要求该销售行为
for sale” and “ready for patenting.”2 The Court back 公开发明细节。鉴于这一早期规定，本案Clar-
then did not further require that the sale make the de- ence Thomas法官认为，尽管Helsinn Healthcare
tails of the invention available to the public. In light of S.A.与明尼苏达州制药公司签订协议在美国销售
this earlier construction, the Justice Clarence Thomas 药物的行为没有将发明公开，国会在《莱希史密
of this case determined that the Congressional reenact- 斯美国发明法案(“AIA”)》中重新制定的规定
ment of the phrase “on sale” in the Leahy-Smith Ameri- 中并未改变“销售”一词的定义。也就是说，新
ca Invents Act (“AIA”) did not alter this meaning despite 规定沿用了之前的司法规定。相应的，发明向负
the fact that the act which Helsinn Healthcare S.A. en- 有约定义务对发明保密的第三方销售的行为符合
tered into agreements with a Minnesota pharmaceuti- 《美国发明法案》对于发明“销售”的定义。
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 “on sale” under the AIA.
2 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 67, 119 S. Ct. 2 Pfaff 诉 Wells Electronics, Inc.案，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. 诉Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.案
USA, Inc. is to decide whether the sale of an invention 的关键点在于认定将发明向负有约定义务对发明
to a third party who is contractually obligated to keep 保密的第三方销售的行为是否符合§102(a)规定
the invention confidential places the invention “on 中对于发明“销售”的定义。
sale” within the meaning of §102(a).
More than twenty years prior, the United States Su- 二十多年前，美国最高法院认定，当发明“销
preme Court held that inventions were “on sale” within 售”的行为“属于商业销售”且“准备授予专
the meaning of an earlier version of §102(a) when the 利”时，该发明符合原先§102(a)对于“销售”
act of “on sale” was “the subject of a commercial offer 的定义。2法院当时并未进一步要求该销售行为
for sale” and “ready for patenting.”2 The Court back 公开发明细节。鉴于这一早期规定，本案Clar-
then did not further require that the sale make the de- ence Thomas法官认为，尽管Helsinn Healthcare
tails of the invention available to the public. In light of S.A.与明尼苏达州制药公司签订协议在美国销售
this earlier construction, the Justice Clarence Thomas 药物的行为没有将发明公开，国会在《莱希史密
of this case determined that the Congressional reenact- 斯美国发明法案(“AIA”)》中重新制定的规定
ment of the phrase “on sale” in the Leahy-Smith Ameri- 中并未改变“销售”一词的定义。也就是说，新
ca Invents Act (“AIA”) did not alter this meaning despite 规定沿用了之前的司法规定。相应的，发明向负
the fact that the act which Helsinn Healthcare S.A. en- 有约定义务对发明保密的第三方销售的行为符合
tered into agreements with a Minnesota pharmaceuti- 《美国发明法案》对于发明“销售”的定义。
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 “on sale” under the AIA.
2 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 67, 119 S. Ct. 2 Pfaff 诉 Wells Electronics, Inc.案，525 U. S. 55, 67, 119
304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998) S. Ct. 304, 142 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1998)
8
