Graham v. John Deere (JWB Class)

The Case

• Graham suing John Deere for infringement
  • patent was for a mechanism to plow rocky soil
• District Court in the 5th District said the patent was valid
  • Appellate Court in the 8th District Court it was invalid
• Independent of secondary considerations (commercial success, unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.) ultimately did not matter – it was ruled obvious

Calmar v. Cook Chemical, Co.

• “file wrapper” – when an applicant has an intentionally broad patent application, with the intention of reapplying once you know what the patent office shot down – you concede things to get your patent issued, you can’t later on argue things that are inconsistent with what you conceded
• cans with pumps on the sides were difficult to package – wanted them to be integrated
• invention: overcap attached to sprayer, keeps the pump protected and keeps it from leaking
  • distinction: combining thread and seal so the pump is clamped down
• Courts ruled it was obvious in light of the engineering features it had
  • whether something is obvious or not should be an engineering consideration

Non-Obviousness

“Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”

• Commercial success, unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances of obviousness or nonobviousness
• Jefferson: getting a monopoly on an idea is not a natural right
  • observed that the nature of ideas is something you cannot control
• Constitution and Code (up through 1952) had words like “inventiveness”, but the words were fought over
• Last sentence of 103: patentability cannot be affected by the manner in which the invention comes about