View source for A&P Tea Co v. Supermarket Corp. (901422128)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki

← A&P Tea Co v. Supermarket Corp. (901422128)

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Read for 1/26/11 ==Reading Notes== *Decided in 1950 *Two lower courts agreed in holding three patents valid and therefore infringed upon **This court maintains incorrect criteria of invention were used and therefore the patents are invalid *Assert invention of a special cashier's counter that speeds the customer and reduces checking costs for the merchant **Moves groceries from the customer to the clerk and back *District court found each element known to prior art **However the counter with an extension to receive a self-unloading tray to push the contents in front of the cashier is a new and useful combination *Court of Appeals upheld *Perceived invention only in an extension of the counter **USSC thinks they were incorrect in doing so *USSC reasoning **Extension not mention in the claims in a clear manner **A mere change in length in this case does not constitute invention **The patent was granted not simply to the change in length but also to old elements **The conjunction or concert must contribute something *Patents are not good when they subtract resources formerly available to skilled artisans *Commercial success without invention does not equal a patent *A higher court can only overturn the decision of '''two''' concurring lower courts in the face of obvious error ===Concurring judges=== *Congress must act with regard to patents under the purpose of promoting the progess of science and useful arts **"Inventive genius" is the test most often used **Not enough to be new and useful *Court recognizes that the "standard of invention" controls cases *The Patent Office has exercised discretion to expand its jurisdiction and patented a host of gadgets that have no place in advancing scientific knowledge ===Nonobviousness in 1950=== *"New and useful" *Must decide what to do if nothing tangible is new and the invention is only bringing old elements together **Court has never given a precise definition of this test *"Combination" signified presence of invention, "aggregation" signifies lack of **The combination must perform an addition or different function *No longer enough to be "new and useful" ==Class Notes== *USSC claimed the criteria used for “invention” were incorrect **Ruled this was more of business improvement than a scientific improvement **Reversed decisions of lower court ===Non-obviousness=== *Patent laws are for the advancement of science **Must be difficult, a scientific advancement, and important **”Invention” *Standard has been codified more than it was at this point **Part of non-obviousness

Return to A&P Tea Co v. Supermarket Corp. (901422128).