1/31/11 : Graham v. John Deere (kyergler): Difference between revisions
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Case 2 : Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co. == | |||
- Cook Chemical contends that the invention encompasses a unique combination of admittedly old elements that that patentability is found in the results produced. Its expert testified that the invention was "the first commercially successful, inexpensive integrated shipping closure pump unit which permitted automated assembly with a container of household insecticide or similar liquids to produce a practical, ready-to-use package which could be shipped without external leakage and which was so organized that the pump unit with its hold-down cap could be itself assembled and sealed and the later assembled and sealed on the container without breaking of the first seal. | |||
- Cook Chemical stressed the "long-felt need in the industry for such a device" | |||
- Calmar says "the device as a whole would have been obvious at the time of its invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art." | |||
Revision as of 04:14, 31 January 2011
Case 1: Graham v. John Deere
-
Case 2 : Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
- Cook Chemical contends that the invention encompasses a unique combination of admittedly old elements that that patentability is found in the results produced. Its expert testified that the invention was "the first commercially successful, inexpensive integrated shipping closure pump unit which permitted automated assembly with a container of household insecticide or similar liquids to produce a practical, ready-to-use package which could be shipped without external leakage and which was so organized that the pump unit with its hold-down cap could be itself assembled and sealed and the later assembled and sealed on the container without breaking of the first seal. - Cook Chemical stressed the "long-felt need in the industry for such a device"
- Calmar says "the device as a whole would have been obvious at the time of its invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art."
