It also often means that we have reacted in unhealthy ways to feeling invalidated by the pw BPD.
We need to fix ourselves (the pw BPD isn't going to fix us) and we need to disengage a bit from the push/pull validation habits common to pw BPD.
Often, unidentified or unrecognized and invalidated feelings are at the heart of relationship issues and problems.
Based on a review of the relevant case law, a patentee trying to avoid a finding that the clinical trials conducted in connection with its drug development efforts constitute an invalidating public use would benefit from taking the below precautions to the extent it is clinically/technically, financially, and administratively feasible to do so.We are often more aware of not being listened to (heard) than of our own shortfalls of not listening to others.We may be reacting and resentful ourselves to a lack of being validated. In a "BPD family" there are going to be validation issues.And all of this may be further complicated by the fact that we are tired, frustrated, fearful, or holding onto resentments.Even though we know that listening carefully is important in relationships, it can be very difficult to recognize when we aren't succeeding at it. Under the AIA, a public use may be invalidating whether it occurred within or outside the United States, with a similar but weaker one year grace period applying. Since the AIA uses similar language defining invalidating public use it can be expected that pre-AIA case law and principles will remain relevant, but time shifted to reflect the first to file realities of the AIA. For example, proof of reduction to practice prior to the alleged public use is often relied upon by patent challengers in an effort to establish that the invention was ready for patenting at the time of the use. Patent applications are typically filed early on in the process of developing and commercializing a pharmaceutical drug product. Under pre-AIA Section 102(b), the public use had to be carried out within the United States and more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application in order to be invalidating. Patent and Trademark Office has not opined on whether an experimental use exception remains under the AIA, public use does clearly still remain an impediment to patentability. The legal principles set out above, while seemingly straight-forward enough, leave ample room for case-specific interpretation and application when it comes to the question of whether the use of a claimed invention in connection with carrying out clinical trials will constitute an invalidating public use.It can be as simple as negative body language, a look or not saying something when one would expect something to be said.Validation, on the other hand, is not mindless submission to another person.While both the “ready for patenting” and the “public” prongs of the public use analysis are fact-intensive, case-specific analyses, adhering to the above guidance will unquestionably significantly increase the probability of side-stepping public use defenses based on a patentee’s own clinical trials.Consistent with above, care should be taken not only with respect to design and implementation of the patentee’s clinical studies, but also with respect to decisions as the timing of the filing of patent applications directed to inventions that will be used in connection with carrying out the clinical studies.