Hotchkiss v. Greenwood SKH: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "- Patent for a process of making knobs for doors and cabinets - Claimed novelty for material - Nothing new about door knobs or the shanks/axels to turn the latch" |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Summary''' | |||
*Patent for a process of making knobs for doors and cabinets | |||
*Claimed novelty for material | |||
*Nothing new about door knobs or the shanks/axels to turn the latch | |||
*Ultimately arguing about jury instructions | |||
**questions of law vs. questions of fact | |||
*Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show patent is not valid | |||
'''Decision''' | |||
*Decided there was nothing other than substitution of material | |||
*Patent is not valid because nothing was invented | |||
'''Dissent''' | |||
*Emphasized making combinations that do something "better," "cheaper," or "new." | |||
*Does not matter if it was obvious, as long as something was made better | |||
Latest revision as of 16:35, 1 February 2011
Summary
- Patent for a process of making knobs for doors and cabinets
- Claimed novelty for material
- Nothing new about door knobs or the shanks/axels to turn the latch
- Ultimately arguing about jury instructions
- questions of law vs. questions of fact
- Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show patent is not valid
Decision
- Decided there was nothing other than substitution of material
- Patent is not valid because nothing was invented
Dissent
- Emphasized making combinations that do something "better," "cheaper," or "new."
- Does not matter if it was obvious, as long as something was made better
