Also known as: otherwise publicly available · publicly available · not confidential
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Information or material that members of the public can access without legal restriction. The phrase identifies material that loses protected status because it is already open to general examination.
Allied Development discussed its deed pledge to Stephen at a public board meeting whose minutes were posted online and summarized in local newspapers. State A reviewed those materials during due diligence before purchasing the building. Because the information appeared in publicly accessible sources, it qualified as otherwise available to the public and defeated any claim that the details remained confidential government information.
A university library indexed the Foldi dissertation in its general catalog and placed copies in the open stacks. Researchers could locate and examine the document without restriction. The dissertation therefore became otherwise available to the public and entered the body of prior art that could invalidate a later patent claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The rule defines confidential government information as material the government is prohibited by law from disclosing and that is not otherwise available to the public. Once the same information appears in public records or other unrestricted sources, it loses confidential status and the lawyer may use it in private representation.
Supporting sources
No. The phrase requires only that the material be accessible to members of the public without legal barrier. Indexing in a library catalog or posting minutes online satisfies the standard even if few people actually examine the source.
Supporting sources
The material enters the prior art and can defeat novelty under the residual category of post-AIA section 102(a)(1). A later inventor cannot obtain a patent on subject matter already placed in that public domain.
Supporting sources
…That argument it found “without merit.” It cited the Hazeltine case as rejecting the notion that “prior art” included only “publicly available information.” It then said (emphasis added): Although Hazeltine Research dealt with the specific correspondence between Section 103 and Section 102(e), the considerations expressed are…