Space Systems/Loral, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

271 F.3d 1076, 60 USPQ2d 1861 (2001)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
S
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Space Systems/Loral, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
271 F.3d 1076, 60 USPQ2d 1861 (2001)

Facts

Dr. Fred Chan was an employee of Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp. (Ford), a predecessor to Space Systems/Loral, Inc. (SSL) (defendant). Chan developed a novel method for correcting a satellite’s position after it has been pulled out of proper orientation by gravitational forces or solar winds. Chan’s method was called the prebias technique. In March 1982, Ford sent a proposal describing Chan’s prebias technique to a French aerospace company. The proposal included rough drawings and a cost estimate. Chan had yet to develop an engineering model to test his technique and was unsure whether his idea would in fact work. After several more months of development, on April 21, 1983, Ford applied for a patent for the prebias technique. Later, Lockheed Martin Corp. (Lockheed) (plaintiff) sued SSL. Lockheed argued that Ford’s patent for the prebias technique was invalid under patent law’s on-sale bar because Chan’s invention was allegedly ready for patenting and offered for sale more than one year before Ford applied for the invention’s patent. The district court agreed, finding that Ford’s patent for the prebias satellite-adjustment technique was invalid and granting summary judgment for Lockheed. SSL appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Intellectual Property
Patent

Key Terms