Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc.

Last updated
Sakraida v. Ag Pro
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 3, 1976
Decided April 20, 1976
Full case nameBernard A. Sakraida, Petitioner, v. AG Pro Incorporated
Citations425 U.S. 273 ( more )
96 S. Ct. 1532; 47 L. Ed. 2d 784; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 146; 189 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 449
Subsequent historyRehearing Denied June 21, 1976
Holding
The Court held a patent directed to a combination of old elements as invalid for obviousness.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined unanimously

Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976), [1] was a unanimous 1976 Supreme Court decision holding a claimed invention obvious because it "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations." [2]

Supreme Court of the United States highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about 100–150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review.

Contents

Background

The patent in this case covered "a water flush system to remove cow manure from the floor of a dairy barn." [3] The system was a combination of conventional, well-known elements, using flowing water to flush cow manure from a barn. "Systems using flowing water to clean animal wastes from barn floors have been familiar on dairy farms since ancient times." [4] The Court cited the fifth labor of Hercules (cleaning the Augean stables) as an example. [5] It was conceded that each element of the claimed combination was found in the prior art. [6] "The only claimed inventive feature of the [patented] combination of old elements is the provision for abrupt release of the water from the tanks or pools directly onto the barn floor, which causes the flow of a sheet of water that washes all animal waste into drains within minutes and requires no supplemental hand labor." [7]

In Greek mythology, Augeas, whose name means "bright", was king of Elis and father of Epicaste. Some say that Augeas was one of the Argonauts. He is best known for his stables, which housed the single greatest number of cattle in the country and had never been cleaned, until the time of the great hero Heracles.

Ruling of Supreme Court

Justice Brennan US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice Brennan

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Justice William J. Brennan held that the claimed invention was obvious under the standards set out in prior Supreme Court decisions. Not only were each of the claimed elements old and well known, but what the inventor said was "the essence of the patent, to-wit, the manure flush system, was old, various means for flushing manure from dairy barns having been used long before the filing of the application." [8] Moreover, "there is no change in the respective functions of the elements of the combination; this particular use of the assembly of old elements would be obvious to any person skilled in the art of mechanical application." [9]

The Court concluded that although "doubtless a matter of great convenience, producing a desired result in a cheaper and faster way, and enjoying commercial success," the claimed system "did not produce a new or different function" and therefore was not patentable. [10]

Commentary

One commentator expressed extreme disappointment with this decision and the trend of Supreme Court patent decisions away from a hoped-for "brief exultant moment" of decisions favorable to patenting:

Sakraida coupled with the Black Rock decision, will send the conceptual clarity of inventors, lawyers, and judges, plummeting into the confusion that was earlier prevalent. Section 103 and the Trilogy, which for a brief exultant moment cleared away the debris produced by the preexisting case law, are again being grossly misinterpreted by a bar seemingly cemented into its pre-1952 habits. All persons involved should become more familiar with the fine distinctions produced in this area and recognize the intent of the United States Congress when its enacted Section 103 into law. If the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, do not have any "in house" expertise in the specialized areas of engineering, science, and chemistry, they should make use of the many experts available and receive full and knowledgeable explanations of any baffling intricacies. [11]

Commentator Hal Wegner asserted that "the Federal Circuit sub silentio but clearly repudiated the Supreme Court’s holding in Sakraida just seven years after it was decided, [12] in the Federal Circuit's decision in Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. [13] In the same vein, a much used patent law casebook said in 2003 that "in its early decisions, the Federal Circuit essentially repudiated the holding[]" of Sakraida. [14]

Chris Cotropia maintained that in its 2007 decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , [15] the Supreme Court "reaffirmed and further explained its holding[]" in Sakraida, while turning back the Federal Circuit's rejection and opposition to that precedent. [16]

Related Research Articles

A person having ordinary skill in the art, a person of (ordinary) skill in the art, a person skilled in the art, a skilled addressee or simply a skilled person is a legal fiction found in many patent laws throughout the world. This fictional person is considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. He or she mainly serves as a reference for determining, or at least evaluating, whether an invention is non-obvious or not, or involves an inventive step or not. If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is the Federal district court with jurisdiction over of the eastern portion of the state of Michigan. The Court is based in Detroit, with courthouses also located in Ann Arbor, Bay City, Flint, and Port Huron. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the court.

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries provide that certain subject-matter is excluded from patentability, even if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Together with novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

John Fitzgerald Duffy is Professor of Law at University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is a Legal Commentator and Author who has written numerous articles and co-authored a scholarly book on Patent Law. He previously served as law clerk to Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Stephen F. Williams, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Between these two assignments, he served as an attorney at the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice. In addition to clerking for Justice Scalia, John Duffy has been very influential in regard to constitutional law and the appointment of federal judges.

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850), was a United States Supreme Court decision credited with introducing into United States patent law the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement, as well as stating the applicable legal standard for determining its presence or absence in a claimed invention.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969), is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable.

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 (1976), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on the patentability of a claim for a business method patent.

The exhausted combination doctrine, also referred to as the doctrine of theLincoln Engineeringcase, is the doctrine of U.S. patent law that when an inventor invents a new, unobvious device and seeks to patent not merely the new device but also the combination of the new device with a known, conventional device with which the new device cooperates in the conventional and predictable way in which devices of those types have previously cooperated, the combination is unpatentable as an "exhausted combination" or "old combination". The doctrine is also termed the doctrine of the Lincoln Engineering case because the United States Supreme Court explained the doctrine in its decision in Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding a state anti-plug molding law preempted because it partially duplicated and therefore interfered with the balance Congress had struck by federal patent law. The decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964), which held a state unfair competition law preempted on the same ground.

Point of novelty is a term used in patent law to distinguish those elements or limitations in a patent claim that are conventional or known from those elements or limitations that are novel, i.e. not conventional or known. That part of the invention may also be termed its "point of departure from the prior art." The term is also applied to a patentability test--the point of novelty test--which determines patentability by considering the point(s) of novelty after dissecting out the conventional part.

In United States patent law, a machine is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented. The other three are a process, an article of manufacture, and a composition of matter. In United States patent law, that same terminology has been in use since the first patent act in 1790.

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements. It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.

<i>Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.</i>

Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. 587 F.3d 1324, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court held that a patent can be invalidated due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims. Perfect Web, an e-mail marketer, sued its competitor InfoUSA for patent infringement, claiming that InfoUSA's bulk email distribution method infringed its Patent No. 6,631,400. The district court initially found that the patent did not meet the non-obviousness requirement and was therefore invalid. On appeal, The Federal Court agreed that the patent was obvious because someone of ordinary skill could arrive at the patent claim using common sense.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was controversial, with proponents claiming it frees clinical pathologists to practice their medical discipline, and critics claiming that it destabilizes patent law and will stunt investment in the field of personalized medicine, preventing new products and services from emerging in that field.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ 425 U.S, at 282.
  3. ↑ 425 U.S. at 274.
  4. ↑ 425 U.S. at 275.
  5. ↑ 425 U.S. at 275 n.1.
  6. ↑ 425 U.S. at 275-77.
  7. ↑ 425 U.S. at 277.
  8. ↑ 425 U.S. at 280.
  9. ↑ 425 U.S. at 282.
  10. ↑ 425 U.S. at 283.
  11. ↑ James F. Porcello, Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.: Confusion between Invention and Nonobviousness, 6 Cap. U.L. Rev. 111, 121 (1976).
  12. ↑ Harold C. Wegner, Federal Circuit Exclusive Appellate Patent Jurisdiction: A Response to Chief Judge Wood, 13 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 394, 399 (2014).
  13. ↑ Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713F.2d1530 ( Fed. Cir. 1983).
  14. ↑ Martin J. Adelman, Cases and Materials on Patent Law 345 (2d ed. 2003).
  15. ↑ KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
  16. ↑ Christopher A. Cotropia, Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law After KSR, 20 Mich. Telecom. & Tech. L. Rev. 391, 404 (2014).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.