Yes, but note that in almost every case the Patent Office will accept the applicant's representation that the invention is operable. The Patent Office is simply not equipped to perform experiments to test whether the invention works as advertised.
However, there are certain categories of cases which routinely raise suspicions and get flagged as questionable by the Patent Office. Applications for perpetual motion machines and for backward time-travel devices, which are impossible according to most fundamental principles of physics, require the Applicant to come forward with experimental evidence demonstrating that their invention actually works.
Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office has limited means to challenge claims on the grounds of inoperability, this is not necessarily the case in litigation. A party charged with patent infringement may offer evidence demonstrating that whatever is required by the claim is either physically impossible or useless. On the other hand, if a claim actually has been infringed, courts will often be reluctant to find that the invention lacks utility. As one court observed, "People rarely, if ever, appropriate useless inventions" (Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956-957 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
However, there are certain categories of cases which routinely raise suspicions and get flagged as questionable by the Patent Office. Applications for perpetual motion machines and for backward time-travel devices, which are impossible according to most fundamental principles of physics, require the Applicant to come forward with experimental evidence demonstrating that their invention actually works.
Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office has limited means to challenge claims on the grounds of inoperability, this is not necessarily the case in litigation. A party charged with patent infringement may offer evidence demonstrating that whatever is required by the claim is either physically impossible or useless. On the other hand, if a claim actually has been infringed, courts will often be reluctant to find that the invention lacks utility. As one court observed, "People rarely, if ever, appropriate useless inventions" (Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956-957 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
RSS Feed