## Facts

- Baxter owned U.S. Patent No. 4,734,089 covering a sealless centrifuge for separating blood into components.
- Baxter filed the patent application on May 14, 1976; the § 102(b) critical date was May 14, 1975.
- Before the critical date, NIH scientist Dr. Jacques Suaudeau used a sealless centrifuge design developed by NIH scientist Dr. Yoichiro Ito to avoid platelet damage caused by rotating seals.
- Suaudeau had an NIH machine shop build the centrifuge from Ito’s drawings, then balanced and tested it with water and blood.
- The device operated successfully as a blood separator before the critical date, and Suaudeau ran extended tests (up to 43 hours) to assess whether platelet-rich plasma produced by the device was suitable for his heart perfusion research.
- The work occurred in laboratories at NIH and later at Massachusetts General Hospital; other scientists could observe the centrifuge in operation.
- There were no confidentiality restrictions imposed on observers or users.
- Neither Suaudeau nor Ito had any relationship or connection with the inventor named on Baxter’s patent.

## Issues

1. Whether undisputed pre-critical-date third-party use of a sealless centrifuge in open laboratories without confidentiality restrictions constituted “public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. Whether the experimental-use doctrine avoided a § 102(b) bar where the centrifuge already functioned for its intended purpose as a blood separator, but was used to evaluate suitability for a specific research application.
3. Whether summary judgment of invalidity was proper where the timing, character, and circumstances of the use were not genuinely disputed.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) due to prior public use.
- The court held that the relevant use occurred more than one year before the filing date and was “public” because it took place without secrecy obligations in settings where others could observe.
- The court rejected Baxter’s experimental-use argument because the centrifuge had been reduced to practice and shown to work for its intended purpose as a separator before the critical date; later testing related to a particular research goal did not negate public use.
- The court concluded there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that COBE was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- “Public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) can arise from noncommercial use where an embodiment is used without confidentiality restrictions in circumstances accessible to others.
- Prior public use by independent third parties, even without any connection to the patentee or inventor, can trigger a § 102(b) bar.
- An invention is reduced to practice when it is shown to work for its intended purpose; once reduced to practice, continued use aimed at evaluating suitability for a specific research application does not necessarily qualify as experimental use as to the invention itself.
- Summary judgment of invalidity is proper when the material facts about pre-critical-date use and its public character are undisputed and the § 102(b) consequence follows as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held Baxter’s claims barred by § 102(b) because, more than a year before Baxter filed, an operative sealless blood-separating centrifuge was used by third parties in open laboratory conditions without confidentiality, and later research-oriented testing did not convert that use into protected experimentation.


Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. COBE Lab’ys, Inc., 88 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1996)