## Facts

- Larry D. Nichols conceived a 2×2×2 rotational cube puzzle in 1957 and built paper models with internal magnets that he kept in his room.
- Before the patent’s critical date, Nichols showed at least one model to a small group of close acquaintances and explained its operation.
- In 1968 Nichols built a wooden prototype; in January 1969 Moleculon’s president saw it in Nichols’s office and suggested commercialization.
- Nichols assigned his rights to Moleculon in 1969 in exchange for a share of commercialization proceeds.
- Moleculon sought licensees and, in March 1969, sent a model and promotional materials to Parker Brothers.
- Moleculon filed a patent application in 1970; U.S. Patent No. 3,655,201 issued in 1972, with claims covering a cube of eight cubelets and methods for randomizing and restoring patterns through rotational moves.
- Ideal Toy (later CBS) marketed Rubik’s-brand puzzles, including a 3×3×3 cube, 2×2×2 “pocket cube” versions, and a 4×4×4 cube; Moleculon alleged infringement of claims 3–6 and 9.

## Issues

1. Whether Nichols’s limited demonstrations and Moleculon’s pre-filing commercialization efforts triggered the § 102(b) public use or on-sale bar.
2. Whether the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement/operability, or lack of utility.
3. Whether the accused 2×2×2, 3×3×3, and 4×4×4 puzzles infringed the asserted claims literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- It affirmed that the patent was not invalid under § 102(b) because Nichols retained control and the pre-critical-date activities were limited and non-public in character; it also held that transferring patent rights and submitting materials to a prospective licensee were not sales of the invention for § 102(b).
- It affirmed validity of claims 3–5 and 9 against challenges based on obviousness, enablement/operability, and utility.
- It affirmed literal infringement by the accused 2×2×2 puzzles.
- It vacated the finding of literal infringement as to the 3×3×3 and 4×4×4 puzzles (as to the method claims) because the claims’ express “eight cube pieces” limitation could not be expanded by “comprising” language, and remanded for consideration under the doctrine of equivalents.

## Legal Principles

- Limited, private demonstrations under the inventor’s control may not constitute “public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
- A transaction conveying patent rights or seeking a license is not necessarily a “sale of the invention” for purposes of the § 102(b) on-sale bar.
- Open-ended transitional language (e.g., “comprising”) does not negate or broaden an explicit numeric limitation in a claim.
- An invention may be nonobvious even if mechanically simple when prior art does not suggest the claimed configuration and functionality.
- Literal infringement requires satisfaction of express structural and numeric claim limitations; products departing from those limitations may require analysis under the doctrine of equivalents.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld the cube-puzzle patent against § 102(b) and other validity attacks, affirmed literal infringement for 2×2×2 pocket-cube products, but rejected an interpretation that used “comprising” to enlarge an express “eight cube pieces” limitation; it vacated literal infringement findings for larger cubes and remanded for any equivalents analysis.


Moleculon Rsch. Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)