Difference between revisions of "A. & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)"
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "== 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 chec...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*Two previous courts, District and Appeals, found that the patent (and its three claims) was valid. | *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." | *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 == | == Outcome == | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
*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" | *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 | **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 | **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" | *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" | *Concurring opinion reitterates that this device could be made obviously by any "skilled mechanic or operator" | ||
Latest revision as of 11:55, 26 January 2011
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"
