Not many cases in history can claim to have changed the legal standards in patent law. One such case that did was Anderson's-Black Rock Incorporated vs. Pavement Salvage Company, which took place in 1969. The issued patent claimed to solve the problem that exists at the junction between old and new sections of asphalt roads. The invention combined previously used elements, the machine chassis the spreading and shaping equipment, and the heat burner.
The District Court decided that the only thing the inventor did was combine already known and widely used elements into one apparatus. Because of this, they invalidated the patent. Next, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, which brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up siding with the District Court and stated, "The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a new or different function." This case was one of the first landmark cases that addressed the idea of the unpatentability of inventions that combined old elements in an obvious manner.
This is an important historical case, as many inventions utilize elements from various other inventions that are already in use. The main idea here is that the combination has to provide some sort of utility that was not provided by the elements individually. Although this is a slightly subjective concept, it does restrict patents getting approved for the combinations of already used inventions that don't really benefit anyone. I was interested here to see that the court conceded the fact that the combination of the elements into the one apparatus did provide great convenience, which in some courts may have been enough to hold the patent as valid. The result from this case has since been used in major cases regarding obviousness such as KSR vs. Teflex.
(Information obtained from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/396/57/)
The District Court decided that the only thing the inventor did was combine already known and widely used elements into one apparatus. Because of this, they invalidated the patent. Next, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, which brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up siding with the District Court and stated, "The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a new or different function." This case was one of the first landmark cases that addressed the idea of the unpatentability of inventions that combined old elements in an obvious manner.
This is an important historical case, as many inventions utilize elements from various other inventions that are already in use. The main idea here is that the combination has to provide some sort of utility that was not provided by the elements individually. Although this is a slightly subjective concept, it does restrict patents getting approved for the combinations of already used inventions that don't really benefit anyone. I was interested here to see that the court conceded the fact that the combination of the elements into the one apparatus did provide great convenience, which in some courts may have been enough to hold the patent as valid. The result from this case has since been used in major cases regarding obviousness such as KSR vs. Teflex.
(Information obtained from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/396/57/)
This case brings to mind a lot of questions. Given that this new combination of previously existing material did bring about a new function (namely, better mixing at the junction points) why is it that the Supreme Court found this to be obvious? There is clearly a great degree of subjectivity in determining if a new function is enough to deem a patent valid. I think this case actually just established that there needs to be a better more precise standard for determining obviousness and the utility of a new invention.
ReplyDelete