One of our arguments was that private sales-sales in which the invention has not been put into public use or led to the creation of some other type of prior art-should not provide the seller with a safe harbor against prior art under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(B), because a private sale by itself does not "publicly disclose" the invention per the terms of the statute.
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 23-2320 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (nonprecedential), illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury's role in fact finding -- in this case disputes about whether a competitor's prior sales were anticipating based upon the on sale bar. Looking at it from an alternative perspective, the decision demonstrates how the Federal Circuit's regular disregard of conclusory expert testimony can vaporize what appear to be genuine factual disputes.