Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson case brief summary
383 U.S. 519 (1966)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner Commissioner of Patents sought review of a judgment that respondent was entitled a declaration of interference, premised on a holding that, in the chemical field, where a claimed process produced a known product it was not necessary to show utility of the product so long as the product was not alleged to be detrimental to the public interest.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment granting respondent a declaration of interference because the issue of patentability of respondent's claimed process had to be resolved before an interference was declared, and respondent's claimed process was not patentable where it yielded a chemical compound whose sole utility was its potential role as an object of use-testing.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
383 U.S. 519 (1966)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Commissioner of Patents
sought certiorari review of a judgment from the United States Court
of Customs and Patent Appeals, which granted respondent a declaration
of interference premised on a holding that, in the chemical patent
field, where a claimed process produced a known product, it was not
necessary to show utility of the product so long as the product was
not alleged to be detrimental to the public interest.CASE FACTS
Petitioner Commissioner of Patents sought review of a judgment that respondent was entitled a declaration of interference, premised on a holding that, in the chemical field, where a claimed process produced a known product it was not necessary to show utility of the product so long as the product was not alleged to be detrimental to the public interest.
DISCUSSION
- Because the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) was a court established under U.S. Constitutional Article III, the United States Supreme Court held the CCPA exercised judicial, not administrative power.
- The Court had jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1256, to review decisions of the CCPA.
- The Court held the issue of patentability had to be settled before an interference was declared, and under 35 U.S.C.S. § 101, respondent was entitled to patent only that which was useful.
- The Court further held that because no patent could be granted on a chemical compound whose sole utility was its potential role as an object of use-testing, no patent could be granted on the process that yielded the unpatentable product.
- Accordingly, the judgment granting respondent a declaration of interference was reversed.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment granting respondent a declaration of interference because the issue of patentability of respondent's claimed process had to be resolved before an interference was declared, and respondent's claimed process was not patentable where it yielded a chemical compound whose sole utility was its potential role as an object of use-testing.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment