Difference between revisions of "Class Notes 1/26/2011"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Patent: novelty + utility + non-obviousness Non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, combination (issues related to that)")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Patent: novelty + utility + non-obviousness
 
Patent: novelty + utility + non-obviousness
 
  Non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, combination (issues related to that)
 
  Non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, combination (issues related to that)
 +
 +
==Hotchkiss==
 +
 +
In the Supreme court decision they don't refer to statutes or anything.
 +
Main issue was to be the instructions of the jury. Also whether or not the combination of the old merited a patent. Something must arise from the combination that is greater and different from the others.
 +
 +
The plaintiff sued and ended up having their patent deemed invalid.
 +
 +
''The only superiority of it, comes from the mere substitution of material''
 +
 +
That was the opinion of the court.
 +
 +
There was a dissident Justice:
 +
 +
Mostly arguing that there was value to the combination.
 +
 +
==A & P==
 +
 +
Was there sufficient novelty and invention to warrant a patent?
 +
No.
 +
 +
The SC shouldn't have to deal with stupid inventions. As they prevent further investigation.
 +
 +
The whole government was confused as to what an invention is, this case is sort of book keeping putting it all together

Latest revision as of 14:17, 26 January 2011

Patent: novelty + utility + non-obviousness

Non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, combination (issues related to that)

Hotchkiss

In the Supreme court decision they don't refer to statutes or anything. Main issue was to be the instructions of the jury. Also whether or not the combination of the old merited a patent. Something must arise from the combination that is greater and different from the others.

The plaintiff sued and ended up having their patent deemed invalid.

The only superiority of it, comes from the mere substitution of material

That was the opinion of the court.

There was a dissident Justice:

Mostly arguing that there was value to the combination.

A & P

Was there sufficient novelty and invention to warrant a patent? No.

The SC shouldn't have to deal with stupid inventions. As they prevent further investigation.

The whole government was confused as to what an invention is, this case is sort of book keeping putting it all together