Definitive Holdings alleged that Powerteq infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689, which covers methods and devices for reprogramming engine controllers by connecting a device that can replace portions of stock engine control software with new data blocks while retaining an image of the original software. The patent has a priority date of March 30, 2001.

Powerteq moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hypertech Inc. had sold a device called the "Hypertech Power Programmer III" (PP3) embodying all limitations of the asserted claims by at least 1996—more than a year before the patent's critical date of March 30, 2000.

U.S. District Judge David Barlow granted Powerteq's motion, holding that there was no genuine dispute that the PP3 was commercially sold before the critical date and fully embodied each asserted claim. The district court rejected Definitive's evidentiary challenges to Hypertech CEO Mark Ramsey's corporate representative deposition testimony and the PP3's source code.

On appeal, Definitive argued that the on-sale bar should not apply to third-party sales that don't publicly disclose the invention's functionality. The company contended that Hypertech's sales of the PP3 device did not qualify as prior art because purchasers could not discern from the sales how to perform the patented method.

The Federal Circuit rejected that theory. Writing the opinion, Circuit Judge Cunningham held that "triggering the on-sale bar does not require that the sale make the details of the invention available to the public," quoting the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Helsinn Healthcare. The court distinguished cases involving secret manufacturing processes from direct sales of devices embodying patented features: "Hypertech was directly selling to the public the ability to perform the claimed method and to use the claimed apparatus. In these circumstances, the public was directly making use of the patented features and permitting a patentee to remove them from the public domain would withdraw from the public domain technology already available to the public."

The Federal Circuit largely sidestepped Definitive's evidentiary arguments, finding that Ramsey's testimony within his personal knowledge was sufficient to establish that the PP3 was on sale before the critical date and that Powerteq's expert analyzed source code from the PP3.

The case involved the pre-America Invents Act version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).