from viewing a Delphi user screen, is that Delphi monitored routers and servers, among other things, to manage the network. Klener Decl. ¶ 3. Though other portions of Klener’s declaration might constitute inadmissible hearsay, and while the Defendants’ failure to offer similar declarations or testimony from other third-party recipients of a Delphi demonstration is perhaps noteworthy, the Klener declaration nevertheless corroborates the testimony of former Morgan Stanley employees that Delphi was demonstrated to others, and that such demonstrations occurred perhaps as early as 1993. As a number of courts have held, the demonstration of an invention without obtaining assurances of confidentiality may well constitute “public use” under Section 102(b). See Baxter Int’l, 88 F.3d at 1058-59 (<HOLDING>); Beachcombers v. WildeWood Creative Prods., 31
holding that use of teflonstretching machine was not public use within meaning of section 102b noting that employees were told to keep machine confidential and that budd did not keep the machine hidden from employees legally bound to keep their knowledge confidential does not evidence a failure to maintain the secret holding a jury question existed as to whether a patient consented to an operation and whether the operation received was substantially similar to the operation to which the patient consented so as to be within the scope of the consent holding that operation of centrifuge in nih laboratory without any discernable effort to maintain the centrifuge as confidential constituted public use noting that those who observed the centrifuge in operation were under no duty to maintain it as confidential holding that the duty to maintain an easement was upon those entitled to its use rather than upon the servient estate holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential