A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. SKH
From Bill Goodwine's WikiJump 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"
- Went on a rant about the SC concerning itself with trivial matters
- Talked about placing checks on the Patent Office