## Facts

- Linear Technology Corporation (LTC) owned U.S. Patent No. 4,755,741 (as reexamined), directed to adaptive transistor drive circuitry used in switching regulator integrated circuits.
- The named inventor developed the invention while designing a switching regulator chip later marketed as the LT1070.
- The § 102(b) critical date was November 18, 1985.
- Before that date, LTC engaged in pre-release marketing for the LT1070, including distributing preliminary data sheets, using sales representatives, and conducting at least one sales conference.
- Before the official release date, European distributors sent purchase orders for the LT1070.
- LTC entered those orders into its internal system under a “will-advise” status, meaning LTC did not treat the orders as firm until it later confirmed ability to ship and accepted the orders.
- No LT1070 units were shipped before the critical date, and the record did not show a clear pre-critical-date communication by LTC accepting the distributors’ orders.
- LTC sued Micrel for infringement; Micrel asserted invalidity under the § 102(b) on-sale bar based on LTC’s pre-critical-date conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether LTC’s pre-release marketing and its receipt/entry of “will-advise” purchase orders constituted an invalidating “offer for sale” before the critical date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. Whether the district court erred in excluding letters offered by Micrel to prove an invalidating offer for sale.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that the patent was invalid under § 102(b).
- Applying an intervening Federal Circuit standard requiring a contract-law “commercial offer for sale,” the court held the record did not support a finding that an invalidating offer for sale occurred.
- The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings challenged on Micrel’s cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- For the § 102(b) on-sale bar, an “offer for sale” requires a contract-law “commercial offer for sale” capable of being accepted to form a binding contract, assessed by objective manifestations of assent.
- Pre-release promotional activity (e.g., advertising, preliminary data sheets, sales meetings) generally constitutes preliminary negotiations rather than an offer, absent definite terms and an objective intent to be bound.
- Purchase orders and internal processing do not establish an on-sale bar without evidence that the patentee objectively accepted (or otherwise made) a binding commercial offer before the critical date.
- Evidentiary exclusions in this context are reviewed for abuse of discretion; exclusion is upheld where the trial court’s basis (e.g., hearsay or limited probative value) is within its discretion.

## Conclusion

Because LTC’s pre-critical-date marketing and “will-advise” handling of distributor purchase orders did not amount to a contract-law commercial offer for sale, the Federal Circuit held the § 102(b) on-sale bar did not invalidate the patent and reversed the invalidity judgment while affirming the challenged evidentiary rulings.


Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001)