View source for A. & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki

← A. & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)

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

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

== Situation == *In May of 1941 E.D. Turnham was granted a patent for a cashier counter that, when pushed or pulled, moves groceries deposited within it by a customer to the checking clerk via a three sided frame, or rack. *Two previous courts, District and Appeals, found that the patent (and its three claims) was valid. *The U.S. Supreme Court granted certoirari to review the case and determine whether previous courts "applied correct criteria of invention." *Supermarket Corp. was the asignee of the patent, and they sued A&P Tea Co. for infringement of the patent == Outcome == *The patent is invalid. The Supreme Court reverses the decisions of the previous two courts. == Reasoning == *Neither District or Appealate courts "has made any finding that the old elements which made up this device perform any additional function in the combination" **Basically, the "invention" is just a combination of known elements, which together bring no new function - the device is simply an obvious extension of the previous art **Merely extending the length of the grocery counter does not warrant patentablity **Furthermore, a patent for a device that "only unites old elements...diminishes the resources available to skilled men" - there is no new contribution to science, so a patent would just inhibit widespread use of an ordinary thing *The device is not patentable simply because it has has widespread commercial success - "commercial success without invention will not make patentability" *Concurring opinion reitterates that this device could be made obviously by any "skilled mechanic or operator"

Return to A. & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).