The Sinclair & Carroll vs Interchemical Corp case took place in 1945, involving the claims of a heat-dried printer ink which is non-volatile at room temperature. The ink was "invented" by Albert Gessler and assigned to Interchemical Corp, and later used to sue Sinclair & Carroll Co., and the patent was first held invalid by the District Court, then reversed by the Circuit Court before finally reversed yet again by the Supreme Court, which is pretty similar to the KSR case.
In summary, the "invention" had a significant impact on the mass printing industry, especially for non-absorbent paper printing such as that used in magazines. It was interesting how Gessler found the composition, as he was first asked to make an odorless ink (in 1930) by testing chemicals from a catalog which had descriptions of the chemicals. The company which asked for his help later found the ink unsatisfactory for other reasons and Gessler stopped testing. However, in 1932, the company then requested for the heat-drying ink mentioned above, Gessler told them one of the inks he made in 1930 met the requirements. From here, we can see that the ink is obvious, as it was primarily based off a catalog. Even though the ink may have been discovered after much failures, it is to be noted that the primary chemical solvent in the ink (butyl carbitol) with the desired properties was first released to the market in 1929, which meant that past failures would not really count to give Gessler the patent, the chemical's inventor deserves it more. Thus, obviousness was the reason the Supreme Court supported the District Court's decision.
Anyway, as I was reading through parts of the case, I found this interesting statement:
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/327/
In summary, the "invention" had a significant impact on the mass printing industry, especially for non-absorbent paper printing such as that used in magazines. It was interesting how Gessler found the composition, as he was first asked to make an odorless ink (in 1930) by testing chemicals from a catalog which had descriptions of the chemicals. The company which asked for his help later found the ink unsatisfactory for other reasons and Gessler stopped testing. However, in 1932, the company then requested for the heat-drying ink mentioned above, Gessler told them one of the inks he made in 1930 met the requirements. From here, we can see that the ink is obvious, as it was primarily based off a catalog. Even though the ink may have been discovered after much failures, it is to be noted that the primary chemical solvent in the ink (butyl carbitol) with the desired properties was first released to the market in 1929, which meant that past failures would not really count to give Gessler the patent, the chemical's inventor deserves it more. Thus, obviousness was the reason the Supreme Court supported the District Court's decision.
Anyway, as I was reading through parts of the case, I found this interesting statement:
"There has been a tendency among the lower federal courts in infringement suits to dispose of them where possible on the ground of noninfringement, without going into the question of validity of the patent. Irvin v. Buick Motor Co., 88 F.2d 947, 951; Aero Spark Plug Co. v. B.G. Corp., 130 F.2d 290; Franklin v. Masonite Corp., 132 F.2d 800. It has come to be recognized, however, that, of the two questions, validity has the greater public importance, Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541, and the District Court in this case followed what will usually be the better practice by inquiring fully into the validity of this patent."It shows that there are probably many cases which may have been judged unfairly in the past, although I am not too sure if any did reach the Supreme Court to overturn the judgement. Nevertheless, that was decades before the Graham factors came along to set a clearer definition on obviousness.
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/327/
No comments:
Post a Comment