Page:Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al..pdf/8

6 a patent if, “more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States,” “the invention was… on sale” in the United States. 35 U. S. C. §102(b) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). The AIA, as relevant here, retained the on-sale bar and added the catchall phrase “or otherwise available to the public.” §102(a)(1) (2012 ed.) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless” the “claimed invention was… in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public…”). We must decide whether these changes altered the meaning of the “on sale” bar. We hold that they did not.

Congress enacted the AIA in 2011 against the backdrop of a substantial body of law interpreting §102’s on-sale bar. In 1998, we determined that the pre-AIA on-sale bar applies “when two conditions are satisfied” more than a year before an inventor files a patent application. Pfaff, 525 U. S., at 67. “First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale.” Ibid. “Second, the invention must be ready for patenting,” which we explained could be shown by proof of “reduction to practice” or “drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.” Id., at 67–68.

Although this Court has never addressed the precise question presented in this case, our precedents suggest that a sale or offer of sale need not make an invention available to the public. For instance, we held in Pfaff that an offer for sale could cause an inventor to lose the right to patent, without regard to whether the offer discloses each detail of the invention. E. g., id., at 67. Other cases focus on whether the invention had been sold, not whether the details of the invention had been made available to the public or whether the sale itself had been publicly disclosed. E. g., Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94