The Trade Secrecy Standard for Patent Prior Art

62 Pages Posted: 18 Sep 2020 Last revised: 16 Apr 2021

See all articles by Camilla Alexandra Hrdy

Camilla Alexandra Hrdy

University of Akron School of Law; Yale University - Information Society Project

Sharon K. Sandeen

Mitchell Hamline School of Law; Hanken School of Economics

Date Written: August 5, 2020

Abstract

A fundamental criterion of patentability is that an invention must be new as compared to the prior art—the corpus of preexisting knowledge and technology already available to the public. If an invention is in the prior art, or rendered obvious by it, it cannot be patented.

The U.S. Patent Act has traditionally envisioned a categorical approach for deciding what counts as prior art. Under this approach, courts are supposed to decide whether a particular disclosure about the invention (a reference) falls within one of the categories listed in Section 102 of the Patent Act, such as “described in a printed publication,” “in public use,” or “on sale.” Yet the categorical approach lacks a coherent theory of publicness. It is difficult to find guiding principles to explain courts’ decisions about what is, or is not, public. For example, a woman wearing a corset invention at home under her clothing was deemed to be an invalidating “public use” that barred future patenting; yet an employee liberally sharing his invention with others at work was not.

We argue that, while courts refer to the statutory categories, they are in reality turning to concepts of publicness that strikingly resemble those of a different legal regime: trade secret law. Indeed, our review of the cases shows that trade secrecy status is dispositive for what counts as prior art in many of the leading cases. At a normative level, we argue that trade secrecy provides a surprisingly effective way to manage the boundary between legally public and legally secret information, and for deciding whether a reference is truly “available to the public” in the ways that matter for patent policy and, indeed, information policy more broadly. Not only does the trade secrecy standard protect peoples’ justifiable reliance on information that is already available to them, but it simultaneously makes inventors’ paths to patenting more efficient.

Keywords: patents, trade secrets, prior art

Suggested Citation

Hrdy, Camilla Alexandra and Sandeen, Sharon K., The Trade Secrecy Standard for Patent Prior Art (August 5, 2020). American University Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 4, p. 1269 , 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3667107 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3667107

Camilla Alexandra Hrdy (Contact Author)

University of Akron School of Law ( email )

259 S. Broadway
Akron, OH 44325
United States

Yale University - Information Society Project ( email )

New Haven, CT

Sharon K. Sandeen

Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )

875 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-3076
United States

Hanken School of Economics ( email )

P.O. Box 479
FI-00101 Helsinki, 00101
Finland

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
146
Abstract Views
2,669
Rank
360,858
PlumX Metrics