Graham v. John Deere (KyleR): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*Decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. | *Decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. | ||
*Two patent-infringement claims being debated: | *Two patent-infringement claims being debated: | ||
**No. 11: "Clamp for vibrating shank plows" | **No. 11: "Clamp for vibrating shank plows" - prevents damage to plow | ||
***1955 - ruled valid by Fifth Circuit. The combination produces an old result in a cheaper, more effective way | ***1955 - ruled valid by Fifth Circuit. The combination produces an old result in a cheaper, more effective way | ||
***1964 - ruled invalid by Eight Circuit. The combination provides no new result | ***1964 - ruled invalid by Eight Circuit. The combination provides no new result | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*1952 Patent Act - introduces "nonobviousness" in section 103. This section is intended by Congress merely as a codification of judicial precedent set forth in Hotchkiss; not intended to change the general level of patentability. | *1952 Patent Act - introduces "nonobviousness" in section 103. This section is intended by Congress merely as a codification of judicial precedent set forth in Hotchkiss; not intended to change the general level of patentability. | ||
**"Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is to be determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances..." | **"Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is to be determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances..." | ||
No. 11 - Clamp for plows | |||
*Graham's argument in court focuses on the greater "flexing" qualities of his new design ('798), but this was not a significant feature discussed in the patent filing. | |||
*all of the elements of Graham's '798 patent are present in the Glencoe device. | |||
*the prior art is comprised of the Glencoe device and Graham's earlier '811 patent. | |||
**Graham's new '798 patent is found to introduce nothing new that is not obvious. | |||
No. 37 and No. 43 - plastic finger sprayer with "hold-down" lid | |||
Revision as of 01:42, 31 January 2011
Overview
- Decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966.
- Two patent-infringement claims being debated:
- No. 11: "Clamp for vibrating shank plows" - prevents damage to plow
- 1955 - ruled valid by Fifth Circuit. The combination produces an old result in a cheaper, more effective way
- 1964 - ruled invalid by Eight Circuit. The combination provides no new result
- 1966 - ruled invalid by Supreme Court. But neither Circuit applied the correct test
- No. 37 and No. 43: a built-in plastic finger sprayer with a "hold-down" cap for insecticide dispensing. Patent issued to Cook Chemical.
- ruled valid by District Court and Court of Appeals
- ruled invalid by Supreme Court.
- No. 11: "Clamp for vibrating shank plows" - prevents damage to plow
History of Patent Law
- Congress is given the power to issue patents/monopolies, but that power is limited.
- must "promote the Progress of ... useful Arts".
- cannot remove or restrict access to existing knowledge from the public domain.
- Thomas Jefferson, who authored the 1793 Patent Act, did not intend for patents to be granted for "small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices"
- Congress and Jefferson agreed that is should be up to the courts to develop detailed standards for patentability
- 1851 - Hotchkiss - device must require more skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic
- 1952 Patent Act - introduces "nonobviousness" in section 103. This section is intended by Congress merely as a codification of judicial precedent set forth in Hotchkiss; not intended to change the general level of patentability.
- "Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is to be determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances..."
No. 11 - Clamp for plows
- Graham's argument in court focuses on the greater "flexing" qualities of his new design ('798), but this was not a significant feature discussed in the patent filing.
- all of the elements of Graham's '798 patent are present in the Glencoe device.
- the prior art is comprised of the Glencoe device and Graham's earlier '811 patent.
- Graham's new '798 patent is found to introduce nothing new that is not obvious.
No. 37 and No. 43 - plastic finger sprayer with "hold-down" lid
