This post was first published on 16th July, 2014.
Today’s special is the case that has set a high precedent in US Patent Law practice, acquiring the status of the highest cited case in subsequent cases decided by several courts, especially the CAFC. Graham vs. John Deere Co. is cited extensively since it clarifies the judicial standing on the requirement of non-obviousness of an invention. William T Graham (Graham) sued John Deere Co. (Deere) for patent infringement.
Details: Graham invented a new shock absorber to add to tractors, essentially a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plowed through rocky soil and thus prevented damage to the plow. Graham obtained a patent (US Patent 2,493,811) on this device.
Shortly thereafter, Graham made an improvement on this device and applied and obtained a patent (US Patent 2,627,798) for the improvement. Only 2 differences existed between the two patents, them being: the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate did not appear in 2,493,811 and the position of the shank was reversed, being placed in 2,493,811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate.
This post was last published on September 1st, 2014.
Innovation has always been focused on existing plant varieties which scientists use for improvements and for which breeders’ exemption (the right to use protected plant varieties in their research and claim ownership of the results) is granted. But patents don’t provide for a breeders’ exemption and researchers will have to pay for access to patented materials used in their research if they are allowed access at all. Patent stacking has become common practice – it refers to taking out patents for different aspects of a single innovation, forcing several royalty applications and payments.
From the very beginning Plant Variety Protection Law has contained a special provision that the breeder’s rights shall not extend to acts done for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and developing other plant varieties. It already appeared in Art. 5(3) of the 1961 UPOV Convention and can still be found in Art. 15(1)(iii) of the 1991 UPOV Convention and in Art. 15(c) of Regulation 2100/94 on Community Plant Variety Rights  OJ L227/1. It speaks for itself that this rule has also been laid down in many national Plant Variety Protection regulations ever since.
This post was last published on July 18th, 2014. Today we will take a look at two patentability cases with a very similar premise, the premise being if the public use of an invention bars its patentability. What these two cases have in common is only the premise, and with a little scrutiny, we will see how contrasting the cases actually were. 1. Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881) In the year 1855, Samuel Barnes, designed corset springs, i.e., the springs that hold a corset together, for his wife who had expressed her dissatisfaction with the existing corset binders that were not...Continue reading
This post was first published on 13th June 2014. What's the one thing that is common between a 1975 Suzuki RE5 motorcycle and a Mazda Taiki supercar? Believe the answer would be - the Engine. Both these vehicles are powered by an engine called the ‘Wankel Engine’. Ranging from a simple single cylinder engine that powers our motorcycles with great mileage, to advanced SCRAM jet engine that propels hyper-sonic airplanes to an astonishing speed of 10,000 km/h, IC engines have evolved over the years. There are many varieties of IC engines based on their working cycles, construction, application, fuel used etc. In general, the...Continue reading
This post was first published on 13th January, 2011. We generally use the phrase “Walking on water”, to refer to a miracle or accomplishing something nearly impossible. But if we consider the literal meaning of it, is it really possible to walk on water? A lot of people dream of walking on water and infact some have walked on water either in reality or as an illusion or miracle. After Lord Ram performed the feat, Leonardo da Vinci in 15th Century sketched how a man can walk on water. Since then, numerous inventions have come up to turn this dream into...Continue reading
This post was first published on March 12th, 2014. Have you ever imagined a world without communication? I am sure that the thought itself is horrible. Over the years, communication technologies have evolved to such an extent as to make the whole world shrink to the size of a portable communication device. Having said that, I think this is the right time to pay tribute to a legend who laid the foundation to the communication era: Alexander Graham Bell - the famous inventor who fetched the first telephone patent. Bell was born on the 3rd of March, 1847. Young Bell exhibited skills...Continue reading
This post was first posted on 8th April, 2011. In a recent development, non-compliance with regard to the requirement of local working of patent, required under patent law, may lead to issue of compulsory licenses to generics for seven top selling drugs. The RTI query sought by SpicyIP (Way to go Spicy IP!) seeking information regarding Form 27 filings by Innovators for the top selling drugs Tarceva (Roche and OSI Pharms), Stutent (Pfizer), Nexavar (Bayer), Sprycel; Dasatinib (BMS), Pegasys (Roche), Viraferonpeg (Schering) and Baraclude;Entecavir (BMS) revealed non-compliance by the Innovators. Ideally, patent holders are required to furnish a statement regarding the working...Continue reading
This post was first published on 2nd September, 2014. Inventive step / Non-Obviousness is one of the most important patentability criteria in almost all patent jurisdictions. Non-obviousness is the term used by the USPTO and is codified in 35 USC § 103. The requirement is that the claimed invention being patented should not be obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" should not be able to easily guess or put two or more things together to arrive at the invention seeking a patent grant. Now, let’s discuss the Inventive step / Non-Obviousness criteria with an interesting example relating to the Dress Pin invention...Continue reading
“Patent News Bulletin: Quote of the Week, Indian Patent Statistics, First Examination Report (FER) Statistics, Indian Industrial Design Statistics, NLUJA, Assam invites applications for IPR Chair Professor; European Patent Office launches - Strategic Plan 2023; Coordination Meeting for IGO’s to be hosted by WIPO in July and more” presented to you by the Patent attorneys and experts of BananaIP Counsels, India’s leading Patent Firm. QUOTE OF THE WEEK “Patent risks in Open Source usage are real, and Companies must implement mitigation measures before they prove to be too late or too expensive” – Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala, BananaIP Counsels INDIAN PATENT STATISTICS A total...Continue reading