UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S., 816 F.2d 647 (1987) Notes

contract w navy to supply accelerometer to determine if plane needs to be serviced

trying to improve technology

• late 66- UMC-A contract -
• early 67 - UMC-A doesnt work, start work on UMC-B
• 4 or 5 /67- prototype built for UMC-B, of a subcomponent
• 6/27/67- 1st proposal?
• 8/2/67- submitted more detailed proposal for UMC-B
• 8/9/67 - UMC gives demo of B
• early 68 - navy says screw it
• 7/68 - new request from navy, leads to contract with other guys
• 8/68-filed

• 6/80 - UMC files action against US

Claims Ct says valid patent, not infringed by ACA that the govt used

• UMC mad they said not infringed
• US mad patent not held invalid

Now CAFC says patent invalid, not concerned with infringement ruling

Why did Claims Ct say valid?

• bc it wasn't "on sale"

end of the story: don't need physical embodiment for on sale bar to apply

• yea it was just a prototype being tested before but it had all the parts

DISSENT

• wants physical model to show its working in order to be considered testing/on sale
  • probably more often carries actual dates with it
• mad that other guys went against precedent

inventions done when youve got it all figured out, not when you make a final working model.