A&P Tea Co v. Supermarket Corp. (901422128)

Read for 1/26/11

Reading Notes

• Decided in 1950
• Two lower courts agreed in holding three patents valid and therefore infringed upon
  • This court maintains incorrect criteria of invention were used and therefore the patents are invalid
• Assert invention of a special cashier's counter that speeds the customer and reduces checking costs for the merchant
  • Moves groceries from the customer to the clerk and back
• District court found each element known to prior art
  • However the counter with an extension to receive a self-unloading tray to push the contents in front of the cashier is a new and useful combination
• Court of Appeals upheld
• Perceived invention only in an extension of the counter
  • USSC thinks they were incorrect in doing so
• USSC reasoning
  • Extension not mention in the claims in a clear manner
  • A mere change in length in this case does not constitute invention
  • The patent was granted not simply to the change in length but also to old elements
  • The conjunction or concert must contribute something
• Patents are not good when they subtract resources formerly available to skilled artisans
• Commercial success without invention does not equal a patent
• A higher court can only overturn the decision of two concurring lower courts in the face of obvious error

Concurring judges

• Congress must act with regard to patents under the purpose of promoting the progess of science and useful arts
  • "Inventive genius" is the test most often used
  • Not enough to be new and useful
• Court recognizes that the "standard of invention" controls cases
• The Patent Office has exercised discretion to expand its jurisdiction and patented a host of gadgets that have no place in advancing scientific knowledge

Nonobviousness in 1950

• "New and useful"
• Must decide what to do if nothing tangible is new and the invention is only bringing old elements together
  • Court has never given a precise definition of this test
• "Combination" signified presence of invention, "aggregation" signifies lack of
  • The combination must perform an addition or different function
• No longer enough to be "new and useful"

Class Notes

• USSC claimed the criteria used for “invention” were incorrect
  • Ruled this was more of business improvement than a scientific improvement
  • Reversed decisions of lower court

Non-obviousness

• Patent laws are for the advancement of science
  • Must be difficult, a scientific advancement, and important
  • ”Invention”
• Standard has been codified more than it was at this point
  • Part of non-obviousness