Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 02/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HOLOGIC, INC., CYTYC SURGICAL PRODUCTS,
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2021-2246
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:18-cv-00217-JFB-SRF, Senior
Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.
______________________
Decided: February 15, 2023
______________________
ROBERT N. HOCHMAN, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL,
argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JULIA
G. TABAT, CAROLINE A. WONG; VERA ELSON, Wilson, Son-
sini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA.; OLIVIA M. KIM,
EDWARD POPLAWSKI, Los Angeles, CA.
MATTHEW WOLF, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also
represented by MARC A. COHN, JENNIFER SKLENAR; AARON
PATRICK BOWLING, Chicago, IL; RYAN CASAMIQUELA, San
Francisco, CA; ASSAD H. RAJANI, Palo Alto, CA.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 02/15/2023
2 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Minerva Surgical, Inc. sued Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc
Surgical Products, LLC in the District of Delaware for in-
fringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208. After discovery,
the district court granted summary judgment that the as-
serted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Minerva appeals.
We affirm. First, the patented technology was “in pub-
lic use” because, before the critical date, Minerva disclosed
fifteen devices having the technology at an event—the in-
dustry’s “Super Bowl.” Minerva’s disclosure of these de-
vices spanned several days and included Minerva
showcasing them at a booth, in meetings with interested
parties, and in a technical presentation. Minerva did not
disclose the devices under any confidentiality obligations,
despite the commercial nature of the event.
Second, at the time of the public use, the technology
was “ready for patenting.” Specifically, Minerva had cre-
ated working prototypes and enabling technical documents
describing the claimed technology.
The district court thus correctly granted summary
judgment of invalidity because there are no genuine factual
disputes, and defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law that the asserted claims are anticipated un-
der the public use bar of § 102(b).
THE ’208 PATENT
The application for U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208 (the “’208
patent”) was filed on November 2, 2012, and claims a pri-
ority date of November 7, 2011. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v.
Hologic, Inc., 550 F. Supp. 3d 158, 161 (D. Del. 2021).
Csaba Truckai and Akos Toth are the listed inventors.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 3
The ’208 patent is directed to surgical devices for a pro-
cedure called “endometrial ablation,” which stops or re-
duces abnormal uterine bleeding. ’208 patent at Abstract.
The procedure generally involves inserting a device having
an energy-delivery surface into a patient’s uterus, expand-
ing the surface, energizing the surface to “ablate” or de-
stroy the endometrial lining of the patient’s uterus, and
removing the surface. See id. at 1:31–2:67, 6:12–60.
The patented device contains a frame having “inner”
and “outer” elements, also called flexures or struts, as seen
in the following figure:
Op. Br. at 11 (annotating Fig. 9 of the ’208 patent). The
elements expand to bring the energy-delivery surface into
contact with the walls of the uterine cavity. Minerva Sur-
gical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at 161. Once in place, the energy-
delivery surface is used to apply energy sufficient to de-
stroy the uterine lining. Id.
Independent claim 13, representative for the purposes
of this appeal, recites:
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 02/15/2023
4 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
A system for endometrial ablation comprising:
an elongated shaft with a working end hav-
ing an axis and comprising a compliant en-
ergy-delivery surface actuatable by an
interior expandable-contractable frame;
the surface expandable to a selected planar
triangular shape configured for deploy-
ment to engage the walls of a patient’s uter-
ine cavity;
wherein the frame has flexible outer ele-
ments in lateral contact with the compliant
surface and flexible inner elements not in
said lateral contact, wherein the inner and
outer elements have substantially dissimi-
lar material properties.
’208 patent at 22:34–45 (emphasis added).
This appeal focuses on the claim term, “the inner and
outer elements have substantially dissimilar material
properties,” (“SDMP” term) which was construed by the
court to mean that the “inner and outer frame elements
have different thickness and different composition.” Mi-
nerva Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at 162. The parties do not
appeal that construction. The parties also do not dispute
that the SDMP frame is intended to result in: (1) An in-
crease to the device’s flexibility—facilitating the device’s
ability to contact the uterine lining; (2) An increase to the
device’s durability—preventing deformation while the de-
vice is being used and removed; and (3) A reduction in the
device’s diameter. See id. at 164–65; Op. Br. at 3–4, 15;
Resp. Br. at 8–10; J.A. 6334.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 5 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 5
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
In 2017, Minerva accused Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Sur-
gical Products, LLC (collectively “Hologic”) of infringing
the ’208 patent. J.A. 116. After discovery, Hologic moved
for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the as-
serted ’208 patent claims were anticipated under the public
use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1 Minerva Surgical,
550 F. Supp. 3d at 160. According to Hologic, on November
16–19, 2009—more than a year before the ’208 patent’s pri-
ority date—Minerva brought a device called “Aurora” to
the 38th Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Lap-
aroscopists (“AAGL 2009”). Hologic asserted that the Au-
rora device disclosed every limitation of the asserted claims
and that the asserted claims were therefore invalid as an-
ticipated by Minerva’s own device.
The story of the Aurora device starts in 2008, when Mi-
nerva began its development. Op. Br. at 9. By early 2009,
Minerva had begun developing prototypes, but these
lacked a frame, an “inner flexure,” “lateral symmetry,” and
the SDMP technology. J.A. 6644–45. Minerva was, how-
ever, searching for the “right combination of parameters to
be able to open the device wide enough and cover a large
enough surface area, deliver energy and then be able to col-
lapse” so the device could be withdrawn, i.e. problems the
SDMP technology resolved. Id.
By mid-2009, Minerva had prototypes that could be in-
serted into uteri, could deliver energy necessary to perform
the surgery, and could be withdrawn after the procedure,
but the prototypes’ frames were “deforming too much.”
1 “A person shall be entitled a patent unless . . . the
invention was . . . in public use . . . in this country, more
than one year prior to the date of the application for patent
in the United States.” Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 6 Filed: 02/15/2023
6 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
J.A. 6645. By July or August 2009, Minerva had recog-
nized that the deformation was caused by the prototypes
having “a very simple frame structure . . . [with] the same
properties.” J.A. 6646; see also J.A. 6621 (Inventor Truckai
testifying that conception of the SDMP term occurred
“somewhere between” July 23, 2009, and November 25,
2009).
In July 2009, Minerva began testing the Aurora device
on extirpated (surgically-removed) human uteri. Op. Br. at
55–56. A report analyzing tests conducted on October 1,
2009, and November 14, 2009, describes that “[a]ll Minerva
devices (n=13) were successfully deployed and conformed
to the uterus,” and “[a]ll devices were removed successfully
post-ablation.” J.A. 12175–76. These results align with
the benefits that the SDMP technology is intended to
achieve. The report concludes that “the Minerva device
would be considered acceptable for clinical use in pre-hys-
terectomy cases”—i.e., in live patients. J.A. 12176.
Undated pages from a lab notebook show the Aurora
device having a frame with an inner element using 440A
stainless steel and an outer element using 17-4 PH stain-
less steel. J.A. 12227. These two steels have different
thicknesses and compositions, and thus disclose the SDMP
term. Minerva Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at 163. While
these pages are undated, subsequent pages are dated No-
vember 25, 2009. J.A. 12250.
The undated lab notebook pages include two CAD
drawings dated August 2009 that also disclose the SDMP
term. J.A. 12234; Minerva Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at
163. The first CAD drawing shows an outer element made
of 0.010” thick 17-4 PH stainless steel. Id. The second
drawing shows an inner element made of 0.018” thick 420
stainless steel. Id. Inventor Toth testified that prototypes
using 420 stainless steel “were performing quite fine” but
“Minerva didn’t stop developing the [Aurora] device even
though the frame was like perfect.” J.A. 6668. He
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 7 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 7
explained that Minerva later found materials that were “a
little better.” J.A. 6669.
On October 23, 2009, Minerva pitched the Aurora de-
vice to a potential acquiror. J.A. 11883, 12090. The presen-
tation slide deck includes several photos of the device and
touts that the Aurora device had a “small insertion diame-
ter” and improved “[f]lexibility to conform” to the uterus—
the benefits of the SDMP technology. J.A. 11899–900.
By October 2009, Minerva was preparing for AAGL
2009, an industry related event dubbed “the Super Bowl of
[the] industry” by Inventor Truckai. J.A. 9128. AAGL
2009 attendees were from various industry groups,
competitors, investors, and phyisicians. J.A. 11294 (slide
deck describing that around 70 device companies had
exhibits at AAGL 2009), 11914, 12090–91.
Inventor Truckai—who was Minerva’s CEO at the
time—asked Minerva’s research and development team to
have “15 full[y] functional” devices ready to bring to AAGL
2009. J.A. 14643; Minerva Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at
164. Minerva obtained a booth at AAGL 2009 to
demonstrate the Aurora devices. J.A. 12115, 11298–99. A
Minerva employee manning the booth reported in an email
that the “[b]ooth has been busy. Lots of interested [doctors]
including several potential investigators. . . . Devices have
been working well. One frame broke but I swapped it out
undetected.” J.A. 12189. A Minerva document
summarizes “comments from AAGL . . . meetings” and
provides feedback that Minerva received on its Aurora
device from sophisticated attendees, such as phyisicians.
J.A. 11914. One comment states that the Aurora device’s
“[f]rame flexibility lends possibility of better conformity to
varying architectures of the uterine cavity,” which, again,
is a purpose of the SDMP technology. Id.
On November 19, 2009, Dr. Andrew Brill, the
Chairman of Minerva’s Medical Advisory Board, gave a
presentation at AAGL 2009 discussing the Aurora device.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 8 Filed: 02/15/2023
8 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
A brochure, distributed at AAGL 2009, explains that the
presentation would include discussion of “[t]he disposable
device’s ability to conform to the uterus [to] enable
treatment of uterine cavities with deformities and variable
volumes.” J.A. 13444.
An “Investigator’s Brochure” dated November 20,
2009—a day after AAGL 2009—provided a detailed de-
scription of the Aurora device and identified that its frame
elements were made of “Stainless steel (420 and 17-4),”
which is consistent with the August 2009 CAD drawings.
J.A. 12169. Similarly, a Bill of Materials from November
24, 2009, lists the same frame elements. Resp. Br. at 18
(citing J.A. 11917); Op. Br. at 18–19 (conceding that the
Bill of Materials “sets forth the specifications for a frame
with flexures having different thicknesses and different
compositions of steel”). These documents, therefore, all dis-
close the SDMP term. Inventor Toth testified that the de-
vice referenced in the Bill of Materials was “[l]ikely” the
Aurora device shown at AAGL 2009. J.A. 6689.
In view of the forgoing record, the district court granted
summary judgment that the asserted claims are antici-
pated under the public use bar. Minerva Surgical, 550 F.
Supp. 3d at 169–70. The court found no genuine dispute
that the display and demonstration of the Aurora device at
AAGL 2009 constituted public use more than a year before
the ’208 patent’s priority date and that those devices dis-
closed embodied claim 13 of the ’208 patent. Id. The court
also explained that the prototypes and technical documents
showed that the invention of the ’208 patent was ready for
patenting at the time of AAGL 2009. Id.
Minerva timely appeals, and we have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 9 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 9
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment under the law of the regional circuit, in this case the
Third Circuit. Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca
Pharm. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The
Third Circuit reviews a grant of summary judgment de
novo. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate when, draw-
ing all justifiable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor,
there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the mo-
vant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). “Whether a patent is invalid for public use is a
question of law based on underlying facts.” Am. Seating
Co. v. USSC Grp., Inc., 514 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
DISCUSSION
Minerva argues that the court erred in granting sum-
mary judgment of invalidity based on the public use bar.
We disagree.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Under the public use bar, “[a] person shall be entitled
a patent unless . . . the invention was . . . in public use . . .
in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the
application for patent in the United States.” Pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). “The public use bar is triggered ‘where,
before the critical date, the invention is [(1)] in public use
and [(2)] ready for patenting.’” 2 Polara Eng’g Inc. v. Camp-
bell Co., 894 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Invi-
trogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2005)).
2 The parties agree that the critical date for the ’208
patent is November 7, 2010.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 10 Filed: 02/15/2023
10 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
The “in public use” element of the bar is met if the in-
vention “was accessible to the public or was commercially
exploited” 3 by the inventor. Delano Farms Co. v. California
Table Grape Comm’n, 778 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted); see also Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharms.,
Inc., 715 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (same with minor
modifications). “An invention is in public use if it is shown
to or used by an individual other than the inventor under
no limitation, restriction, or obligation of confidentiality.”
Am. Seating, 514 F.3d at 1267. To determine whether this
occurred, the court considers, “inter alia, the nature of and
public access to activities involving the invention [and] con-
fidentiality obligations imposed upon observers.” Id.;
Delano Farms, 778 F.3d at 1247.
“Ready for patenting”—the second element of the pub-
lic use bar—may be shown in at least two ways. Pfaff v.
Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67–68 (1998). The first way
is “by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date.”
Id. “Reduction to practice occurs if the claimant had pos-
session of the subject matter of the [claim] and . . . it was
shown or known to work for its intended purpose.” Helsinn
Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “Possession” of the
subject matter may be shown by the existence of a working
prototype. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam
Prods., Inc., 726 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The “in-
tended purpose” of an invention should be considered in
light of the claims and specification. Manning v. Paradis,
296 F.3d 1098, 1102–04 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The second way the “ready for patenting” element may
be shown is “by proof that prior to the critical date the in-
ventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the
3 Because we find that the invention “was accessible
to the public,” we do not resolve whether it was also “com-
mercially exploited.” Delano Farms, 778 F.3d at 1247.
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 11 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 11
invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person
skilled in the art to practice the invention.” Pfaff, 525 U.S.
at 67–68. For example, we have found “CAD drawings” and
related descriptions sufficiently enabling. Hamilton Beach
Brands, 726 F.3d at 1378.
Minerva has three main arguments. First, Minerva as-
serts that disclosure of the Aurora device at AAGL 2009
was not “in public use” because Minerva “merely displayed”
the device. Op. Br. at 59–65. Second, Minerva argues that
there was no disclosure of the “invention” of claim 13 of the
’208 patent because the Aurora device disclosed at AAGL
2009 lacked the SDMP term. Id. at 42–53. Third, Minerva
argues that the invention was not “ready for patenting” be-
cause Minerva was still improving the SDMP technology at
the time of AAGL 2009, so the device did not function for
its intended purpose of ablating “live human” tissue. Id. at
53–59. We address each of these arguments in turn.
In Public Use
The district court correctly determined that disclosing
the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 constituted the invention
being “in public use” for the purposes of § 102(b) because
the invention was “shown to . . . individual[s] other than
the inventor under no limitation, restriction, or obligation
of confidentiality.” Am. Seating, 514 F.3d at 1267.
First, “the nature of and public access to activities in-
volving” the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 indicate public
use. Id. AAGL 2009 was the “Super Bowl” of the industry
and was open to the public. It included attendees who were
critical to Minerva’s budding business—such as potential
investors and physicians—and Minerva had every incen-
tive to showcase the Aurora devices to these attendees as
best as it could. The record shows that Minerva brought
“15 full[y] functional” Aurora devices to AAGL 2009. J.A.
14643. And Minerva’s disclosure of these fifteen devices
spanned several days and included Minerva showcasing
them at a booth, in meetings with interested parties, and
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 12 Filed: 02/15/2023
12 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
in a technical presentation. J.A. 9091, 11296, 12115, 12189
(describing the booth as being “busy,” with “[l]ots of inter-
ested [doctors,] including several potential investigators,”
stopping by). Demonstrations of the Aurora device at the
exhibition booth involved using the device on a “transpar-
ent uterine model with saline” and resulted in “[h]ighly vis-
ible plasma [being] generated only where saline contacted”
the energy-delivery surface of the device. J.A. 11299. On
the last day of the show, Minerva sponsored a presentation
by Dr. Andrew Brill, Chairman of Minerva’s Medical Advi-
sory Board, who among other things highlighted the Au-
rora device’s “ability to conform to the uterus [that] may
enable treatment of uterine cavities with deformities and
variable volumes.” J.A. 9096–97; see also J.A. 9018, 9073,
9096–97, 12035.
Citing Motionless Keyboard, Minerva argues that its
“mere display” of the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 does not
rise to the level of “public use.” Op. Br. at 60–61 (citing
Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2007)). We disagree.
In Motionless Keyboard, the inventor disclosed his pa-
tented keyboard to various third parties. Motionless Key-
board, 486 F.3d at 1385. But these disclosures “only
provided a visual view of the new keyboard design without
any disclosure of the” claimed technology, which involved
“enter[ing] data into a system.” Id.
Minerva’s disclosure at AAGL 2009 went well beyond
that at issue in Motionless Keyboard. At AAGL 2009, as
evidenced by the records of the event (such as the feedback
Minerva documented), Minerva pitched the Aurora device
to various sophisticated industry members, who were al-
lowed to scrutinize the Aurora device closely and see how
it operated. For example, the “Product Comments” Mi-
nerva received from the “AAGL & MAB [Medical Advisory
Board] Meetings November 16–19, 2009” praised the “er-
gonomic design of the handle” as “comfortable and easy to
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 13 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 13
use” for physicians and highlighted the “[f]rame flexibility”
and “[f]lexibility of [the] shaft” as beneficial for patients.
J.A. 11914; see also J.A. 11907–09, 12116. See generally 3
Matthews Annotated Patent Digest § 17:145 (collecting
cases) (“Displaying a product at a trade show by demon-
strating to observers the product in its normal operation,
or a simulation thereof, generally constitutes a ‘public use’
of the displayed product.”); Art+Com Innovationpool
GmbH, v. Google LLC, 712 F. App’x 976, 984 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (invalidity finding where evidence showed that the
“system was publicly demonstrated at two technical confer-
ences to attendees with knowledge of the art and without
any restriction or effort to maintain confidentiality”);
Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1319–
21 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming a district court’s conclusion
that the inventor’s “demonstration of the claimed inven-
tion” to two experts “without any obligation of confidenti-
ality was a public use”). Minerva’s own employee reported
that the Aurora devices were “working well” but were
showcased so thoroughly that “[o]ne frame broke.” J.A.
12189.
Minerva also disputes the district court’s finding that
attendees “observed or handled” the device because “there
is no evidence even suggesting that Minerva had a proto-
type at its AAGL booth that could be handled.” Op. Br. at
63–64 (citing Minerva Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at 169).
Regardless of whether the Aurora devices were closely ob-
served or physically handled, our standard for disclosure
rising to the level of public use is not predicated on a device
being physically handled by the public. See Am. Seating,
514 F.3d at 1267. Rather, public use may also occur where,
as here, the inventor used the device such that at least one
member of the public without any secrecy obligations un-
derstood the invention. See Netscape, 295 F.3d at 1321.
The inescapable conclusion of the detailed feedback Mi-
nerva received on the Aurora device is that Minerva al-
lowed knowledgeable individuals to scrutinize the
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 14 Filed: 02/15/2023
14 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
invention enough to recognize and understand the SDMP
technology Minerva later sought to patent. See, e.g., Dey,
715 F.3d at 1355–56 (collecting cases) (“Even limited dis-
closure to those who are skilled enough to know, under-
stand, and easily demonstrate the invention to others, may
mean that there was no reasonable expectation of secrecy
and that the invention was therefore in public use.”).
Second, the record shows that there were no “confiden-
tiality obligations imposed upon” those who observed the
Aurora device. Am. Seating, 514 F.3d at 1267. Minerva
does not dispute the district court’s determination that the
attendees were not required to sign non-disclosure agree-
ments. J.A. 6689 (Inventor Toth stating his belief that
AAGL 2009 participants were not required to sign NDAs).
Nor does Minerva allege that AAGL 2009 implemented the
type of informal confidentiality obligations we have recog-
nized in prior cases. See, e.g., Bernhardt, L.L.C. v.
Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1380–81 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (vacating a district court decision finding an in-
validating public use where the district court failed to con-
sider that “access was tightly controlled,” “there was an
industry-wide understanding [of confidentiality],” “a
breach of confidence could have serious consequences for
an attendee,” and “there was no effective means for the at-
tendees to divulge the designs they viewed at [the event]
because no photographs or sketches . . . were permitted”).
Instead, Minerva asserts that its “company policy is not to
disclose proprietary information to people until Minerva
files for a patent.” Op. Br. at 64 (cleaned up). While that
may be true, the record establishes that Minerva did not
follow this policy at AAGL 2009. 4
4 Minerva also cites Delano Farms and Dey for its ar-
gument that the AAGL 2009 disclosure was not “in public
use.” See Op. Br. at 59–65. But there was evidence in those
cases that the disclosure was confidential, unlike in this
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 15 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 15
Third, we agree with the district court that there is no
genuine factual dispute that the Aurora devices shown at
AAGL 2009 disclosed the SDMP term of claim 13. Minerva
Surgical, 550 F. Supp. 3d at 169. The inventors conceived
the SDMP technology before AAGL 2009. See, e.g., J.A.
6646; see also J.A. 12234. Minerva’s documentation about
the Aurora device from before and shortly after the event
expressly discloses the Aurora device having the SDMP
term or touts benefits that are derived from the device
having the SDMP technology. This includes Minerva’s
July 2009 extirpated uteri studies, the lab notebook with
August 2009 CAD drawings, the October 23, 2009 acquiror
presentation, the November 20, 2009 Investigator
Brochure, and the November 24, 2009 Bill of Materials.
Further, the record establishes that it was this device
disclosing the SDMP technology that Minerva brought to
AAGL 2009. As discussed, Minerva brought “full[y]
functional” devices to AAGL 2009. J.A. 14643. The
feedback Minerva received at AAGL 2009 described
features Minerva attributes to the SDMP term. J.A. 11914.
Even Inventor Toth could not dispute that the device
disclosed at AAGL 2009 “[l]ikely” had the SDMP term
when confronted with the evidence. J.A. 6689.
We therefore agree with the district court there was no
genuine issue of material fact that the invention of claim
case. See Delano Farms, 778 F.3d at 1248 (“When Jim
Ludy gave [his cousin] the plants, Jim Ludy explicitly told
his cousin to ‘keep [knowledge of the plants] to ourselves’
and expected the fact of their possession of the plants to
remain private.”); see also Dey, 715 F.3d at 1356 (material
dispute existed where there was evidence of “precautions
[that] were taken to exclude members of the public from
obtaining information about the” at-issue drug).
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 16 Filed: 02/15/2023
16 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
13 was “in public use” prior to the critical date of the ’208
patent.
Ready for Patenting
We conclude that the district court correctly deter-
mined that the Aurora device was ready for patenting. The
Aurora device was ready for patenting for two reasons: (1)
Minerva reduced the invention to practice and (2) Minerva
had enabling documentation describing the invention of
claim 13.
First, the record shows that the invention was ready
for patenting because Minerva reduced the invention to
practice by creating working prototypes that embodied
claim 13 and worked for the intended purpose of perform-
ing endometrial ablations. See Hamilton Beach Brands,
726 F.3d at 1379. The evidence establishing this includes
inventor testimony explaining the prototypes and their im-
plementation of the SDMP technology, the extirpated uteri
studies, and the documents describing the prototypes.
Minerva asserts that there is a factual dispute as to re-
duction to practice because Minerva was still working to
improve the Aurora device at the time of AAGL 2009. Mi-
nerva insists that the Aurora device did not function for its
intended purpose of performing ablations on “live human”
uteri. Op. Br. at 55. This argument is unsupported by law
and the evidence in this case.
Contrary to Minerva’s argument, our case law does not
require imposing the “live human” requirement here. Mi-
nerva points to nothing in the intrinsic record indicating
that the ’208 patent is limited to devices only usable on live
human tissue. See, e.g., Op. Br. at 54–55, 58; Reply Br. at
5–12; see Manning, 296 F.3d at 1102–04. Further, that Mi-
nerva was ultimately able to find materials that were “a
little better” for the SDMP term does not preclude a reduc-
tion to practice finding. J.A. 6668. This instead amounts
to mere “later refinements” or “fine tuning,” which are
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 17 Filed: 02/15/2023
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. 17
more than reduction to practice requires. See Atlanta At-
tachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is improper to conclude that an in-
vention is not reduced to practice merely because further
testing is being conducted.”); Hamilton Beach Brands, 726
F.3d at 1379 (“‘Fine-tuning’ of an invention after the criti-
cal date does not mean that the invention was not ready for
patenting.”). Likewise, Minerva’s contention fails because
it is essentially that the disclosed Aurora device was not
ready for FDA approval, which is also beyond that re-
quired. Helsinn Healthcare, 855 F.3d at 1372–73 (explain-
ing that FDA approval is much stricter than the “ready for
patenting” standard); see Op. Br. at 56–57 (arguing that
the inventors did not know whether the Aurora device
would have a failure rate lower than the five or ten percent
required for a successful commercial device).
Even if we applied Minerva’s heightened “live human”
requirement, however, this would not preclude a reduction
to practice finding. As discussed, the extirpated uteri
studies concluded that “the Minerva device would be con-
sidered acceptable for clinical use in pre-hysterectomy
cases,” in other words that the Aurora device would be
considered acceptable for use in clinical trials on live
humans. J.A. 12176. And Inventor Toth similarly testified
that the disclosed versions of the Aurora device were nearly
“perfect.” J.A. 6668.
Aside from being reduced to practice, the invention was
ready for patenting for a second reason: there was docu-
mentation “sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled
in the art to practice the invention” of the disputed SDMP
term of claim 13. Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 67–68. This documen-
tation includes the drawings and detailed descriptions in
the 2009 lab notebook pages disclosing a device with the
SDMP term. See J.A. 12227, 12234; see also J.A. 11899–
900 (the October 23, 2009, acquiror presentation having
images and details of the device); Hamilton Beach Brands,
726 F.3d at 1378 (explaining that “CAD drawings and
Case: 21-2246 Document: 58 Page: 18 Filed: 02/15/2023
18 MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.
descriptions . . . [were] more than enough to enable a per-
son of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed in-
vention”).
We thus agree with the district court there was no gen-
uine issue of material fact that the invention of claim 13
was “ready for patenting” before the critical date of the ’208
patent. 5
CONCLUSION
The district court correctly determined that Minerva’s
disclosure of the Aurora device constituted the invention
being “in public use” and that the device was “ready for pa-
tenting.” We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment because there are no genuine factual
disputes, and Hologic is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law that the ’208 patent is anticipated under the public use
bar of § 102(b). We have considered Minerva’s remaining
arguments and do not find them persuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
5 Minerva also appeals the district court’s exclusion
of Minerva’s expert testimony on the doctrine of equiva-
lence. Because the asserted claims are invalid as antici-
pated, we do not reach this moot issue.