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

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


  • 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


  • 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