Historians have often observed the law of unintended consequences: that every action will have at least one unintended consequence. From the perspective of patentees, the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics Inc., 119 S. Ct. 304 (1998), demonstrate that the law of unintended consequences applies with full force to the development of patent law.

In Pfaff v. Wells, the inventor, Wayne Pfaff, held a patent on a device used to protect integrated circuits. When Pfaff attempted to enforce his patent against Wells Electronics, the district court upheld his patent despite the accused infringer’s assertion that the patent was invalid because Pfaff had triggered the on-sale bar. Title 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars a patent when the subject matter of the invention was placed on sale in this country more than a year before the patent application was filed. The trial court ruled that Pfaff had not triggered the on-sale bar despite having received a written purchase order for his devices a year and a few days before he filed his patent application.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]