preview

Tricia Parker Case Summary

analytical Essay
831 words
831 words
bookmark

The issue is whether Tricia Parker’s patent application is likely to be rejected under the on-sale bar in U.S.C § 102 when an invention similar to the FishMasks was on display at the Dive retail store. An invention is one-sale when it is (1) a subject of commercial sale and (2) ready for patenting, unless (3) it was under experimental use. J.A. LaPorte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1986), Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Code Alarm, Inc. v. Directed Electronics, Inc., 919 F. Supp.259 (E.D. Mich. 1996). In this case, the USPTO would likely reject Tricia Parker’s patent application under the on-sale bar in U.S.C § 102 because her invention was on sale prior to the …show more content…

The court held that the alleged sale activities of a similar product, the Intelliguard 500, made by a third party, Clifford Electronics, before the filing date was deemed a commercial sale. Here with Tricia Parker’s case, a similar invention to the FishMask, Thrill Grills, was on sale at the Dive retail store for two weeks prior to Tricia Parker’s forthcoming patent application. This would suggest that there was either a sale or an offer for sale between the owner of the Thrill Grills and the purchaser for the Dive retail store. Because there was a sale or an offer to sale of a similar invention to the FishMasks, it was therefore a commercial sale. Moreover in Code Alarm, the court held that inventions sold by a third party to a consumer still constituted a commercial sale. Here, twelve components of a similar invention, the Thrill Grills, made by a third party, Marcus Edwards, was sold to the Dive retail store prior to Tricia Parker’s forthcoming patent date. In Comparison, both Tricia Parker’s and Code Alarm’s inventions were sold by a third party to a consumer prior to filing their patents. Because Tricia Parker’s invention was sold by a third party, following the reasoning of the court, a commercial sale should also

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that tricia parker's patent application is likely to be rejected under the on-sale bar in u.s.c 102 because her invention was on sale prior to the effective filing date.
  • Explains that tricia parker's invention was subject to a commercial sale because it was sold, for profit, prior to the effective filing date.
  • Analyzes how a similar invention to the fishmask, thrill grills, was on sale at the dive retail store for two weeks prior to tricia parker's patent application.
Continue ReadingCheck Writing Quality

Harness the Power of AI to Boost Your Grades!

  • Haven't found what you were looking for? Talk to me, I can help!
Continue Reading