For the longer version of these arguments, see our 2024 @stanlrev.bsky.social article "Real-World Prior Art": www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...

We also explain why this rule aligns the on-sale bar with its purpose, why it is consistent with longstanding treatment of secret commercial use as party-specific, and why it incentivizes public disclosures. We hope the Fed. Cir. takes this opportunity to clarify this important area of doctrine!

A simple example: Suppose A makes a private sale, then B files for a patent, then A files for a patent. If the on-sale bar were NOT party-specific, NEITHER inventor gets a patent: A's sale would bar B but wouldn't protect A under 102(b)(1)(B) (b/c not a public disclosure), so B's filing would bar A.

Jonathan Masur and @patentscholar.bsky.social unravel patent law’s “disclosure puzzles”—the doctrines that demand inventors reveal enough to teach the public while still preserving the value of their inventions.

Excellent question. I reached out the the Office to ask about file wrapper access and they sent me here: data.uspto.gov/patent-file-...

It's much less user-friendly than Patent Center was and the UI is *terrible*, so it's not a great replacement.

Also, these are not the only types of users who might want to access Patent Center! Understanding a patent's prosecution history is relevant for businesses, academics, lawyers who aren't registered with the USPTO, etc.

Heard. See @patentscholar.bsky.social 's "Classic Patent Scholarship" project, writtendescription.blogspot.com/p/classic-sc..., which builds on my "Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law," available on SSRN. Newton, Hooke, OTSOG, and all that.

The @statnews.com story suggests they are thinking of march-in rights, but that would only allow them to grant additional licenses after determining that certain statutory criteria are met, which Harvard could appeal to the Court of Federal Claims (see 35 USC 203) www.statnews.com/2025/08/08/h...