Connection lost
Server error
Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. And Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A patent holder sued GM for infringement. The court invalidated the patent, holding that GM’s alleged theft of the invention did not create an exception to the patent law’s “on-sale bar,” which was triggered by pre-filing sales offers from innocent third-party dealers.
Legal Significance: Establishes that the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is an absolute bar to patentability that applies even if the invalidating sale is made by a third party who allegedly misappropriated the invention. An inventor’s delay in filing is dispositive.
Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. And Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
John Evans invented and reduced to practice an aqueous reverse flow cooling system by 1986 but did not file a patent application until July 1, 1992. The critical date for the on-sale bar was therefore July 1, 1991. Evans alleged that General Motors (GM) stole the invention after a demonstration in 1989. In the spring of 1991, GM sent ordering guides for its 1992 Corvette, which included the allegedly infringing cooling system, to its independent dealers. On June 13, 1991, before the critical date, a GM dealer entered into a contract to sell a 1992 Corvette with the new engine to a retail customer, who paid a deposit. Evans later obtained a patent and sued GM for infringement. GM moved for summary judgment, arguing the patent was invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) due to the pre-critical date sales activities. For the purposes of its motion, GM conceded that the product offered for sale embodied the invention. Evans countered that the on-sale bar should not apply because GM had stolen the invention.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an otherwise invalidating offer for sale by an innocent third party, made more than one year before the patent application filing date, trigger the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even if the invention was allegedly misappropriated from the inventor by another entity who instigated the sale?
Yes. The patent is invalid under the on-sale bar. The court held Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit an
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an otherwise invalidating offer for sale by an innocent third party, made more than one year before the patent application filing date, trigger the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even if the invention was allegedly misappropriated from the inventor by another entity who instigated the sale?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the strict, policy-driven application of the § 102(b) on-sale Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Rule
An invention is unpatentable if it was "on sale in this country, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatu
Legal Analysis
The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity, focusing on two main Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A definite commercial offer for sale, such as a customer contract,