The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 6, 1998
Decision: Tuesday, November 10, 1998
Issues: Economic Activity, Patents

Advocates

C. Randall Bain (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Jeffrey P. Minear (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)
Jerry R. Selinger (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1980, Wayne K. Pfaff developed a new type of computer chip socket for Texas Instruments (TI). In early April 1981, TI confirmed they would order and use Pfaff's socket. No actual socket was made until July 1981. Pfaff applied for a patent in April 1982. A patent was not granted on Pfaff's socket until 1985. After the patent was issued, Pfaff sued Wells Electronics, who had developed a competing socket, for patent infringement. Pfaff claimed that Wells' socket infringed upon six of his patent's claims. The District Court held that Wells' socket violated three of Pfaff's patent claims. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held Pfaff had sold the socket to TI more than a year before he applied for a patent. Thus, Wells' socket did not infringe on Pfaff's under the Patent Act of 1952, which states that no one can patent an invention that has been on sale for more than one year before filing a patent application.

Question

Does the confirmation of a commercial sale mark the beginning of the one year period inventors have to file for a patent, despite the fact the invention has not been produced?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled federal patent law does not permit patents to be granted if an invention has been on sale for more than one year in this country before the patent application is filed. Moreover, a patent is on sale when a commercial sale offer has been made and when the inventor has made the invention, prepared drawings, or described the invention enough to be produced.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Wells Electronics, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 35 U.S.C. 102
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1130/>
(last visited ).