A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. SKH

Summary

• Concerns a cashiers cart "invention"
• Combination of older things
• Plaintiff argued that nothing new was invented, but simply an extension of the counter
• Lower courts agreed with the defendant that patents were valid

Decision

• Supreme Court ruled that patent was invalid based on known prior art and a simple combination of that prior art
• Didn't take much effort to create
• "commercial success without invention will not make patentability"

Concurring Opinion

• Went on a rant about the SC concerning itself with trivial matters
• Talked about placing checks on the Patent Office