Also known as: novel · patent novelty
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A statutory requirement that an invention not be anticipated by prior art. The invention must differ in form or function from any technology previously patented, described in a publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public.
A statutory requirement that an invention not be anticipated by prior art. The invention must differ in form or function from any technology previously patented, described in a publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public.
Nikhil Narayan files a patent application for a new filtration device. A competitor shows that an identical device was publicly sold two years earlier. The examiner rejects the application for lack of novelty because the invention was already available to the public.
Nestor Navarro invents a labor-saving bakery machine and seeks a patent. An earlier publication describes the same mechanism. The Patent Office denies the application because the invention lacks novelty under the prior-art bar.
The newness of information that is generally unused or unknown and that gives its owner a competitive advantage in a business field. A rediscovered technique with marketable applications can qualify.
Naomi Norton develops a confidential formula for a new pesticide. Local farmers had already tested an identical compound years earlier. A court finds the information is not novel and therefore receives no trade-secret protection.
A feature of a state-law claim that is sufficiently new or unsettled to justify a federal district court declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
Nicole Navarro, a State A developer, sues a State B subcontractor in federal court on a diversity contract claim. After the anchor claim is dismissed, Navarro adds direct claims against a local supplier under a brand-new State B statute that no appellate court has interpreted. The district court declines supplemental jurisdiction because the claims raise a novel issue of state law.
The newness of information that is generally unused or unknown and that gives its owner a competitive advantage in a business field. A rediscovered technique with marketable applications can qualify.
A feature of a state-law claim that is sufficiently new or unsettled to justify a federal district court declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Natasha Nielsen compiles a telephone directory and claims copyright. A rival shows the listings were copied from an existing public database. The court finds no copyright protection because the compilation lacks the originality that parallels the novelty requirement in patent law.
Novelty asks whether the invention is new and not anticipated by any single prior-art reference. Nonobviousness asks whether the invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Both must be satisfied for patentability.
Any prior patent, printed publication, public use, sale, or other public availability of the identical invention before the filing date defeats novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
No. A rediscovered technique that is generally unknown and provides a competitive advantage can qualify as novel even if it was not independently conceived by the claimant.
Nova Pharmaceuticals challenges a municipal zoning denial in federal court after its diversity claim is dismissed. The challenge rests on an untested state statute governing pharmaceutical facilities. The court declines supplemental jurisdiction because the claim presents a novel issue of state law.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law that has not been interpreted by state appellate courts.
…in the District of Columbia. No cause has been shown and the present motion is for a mandamus. The delicacy of the case, the novelty of some circumstances, and the difficulty of the points require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion is founded. The court considered three questions: (1) Has the…