Difference between revisions of "Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc."
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (bold) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In '''''Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc.''''', 425 U.S. 273 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] derived from its [[patent]] precedents the conclusion that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. ''Id.'' at 282. | In '''''Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc.''''', 425 U.S. 273 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] derived from its [[patent]] precedents the conclusion that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. ''Id.'' at 282. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Patent law]] |
Revision as of 18:52, July 13, 2016
In Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court derived from its patent precedents the conclusion that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. Id. at 282.