|
|
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966)
Brenner v. Manson No. 58 Argued November 17, 1965 Decided March 21, 1966 383 U.S. 519
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS
AND PATENT APPEALS
Syllabus
In December 1957 Ringold and Rosenkranz applied for a patent on an allegedly novel process for making certain steroids, claiming priority as of December, 1956. A patent issued thereon in 1959. In January, 1960, respondent filed an application to patent the same process, asserting that he had discovered it prior to December, 1956, and requesting that an "interference" be declared to test the issue of priority. Respondent’s application was denied by a Patent Office examiner, the Board of Appeals affirming, for failure "to disclose any utility for" the compound produced by the process. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed, holding that, "where a claimed process produces a known product, it is not necessary to show utility for the product" as long as it is not detrimental to the public interest.
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1256 to review upon petition of the Commissioner of Patents patent decisions of the CCPA. Pp. 523-528.
2. The Patent Office properly may refuse to declare an "interference" on the ground that the application therefor fails to disclose a prima facie case of patentability. P. 528, n. 12.
3. The practical utility of the compound produced by a chemical process is an essential element in establishing a prima facie case for the patentability of the process. Pp. 528-536.
(a) One may patent only that which is useful. Pp. 528-529, 535.
(b) Respondent has not provided any basis for overturning the determination of the Patent Office that the utility requirement was not satisfied in this case by reference to the alleged utility of an adjacent homologue. Pp. 531-532.
(c) The requirement that a chemical process be useful is not satisfied by a showing that the compound yielded belongs to a class of compounds which scientists are screening for possible uses. Pp. 532-536.
(d) Nor is the utility requirement for chemical processes satisfied by a showing that the process works, i.e., yields the intended product. Pp. 532-536.
52 C.C.P.A.(Pat.) 739, 333 F. 2d 234, reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) in 383 U.S. 519 383 U.S. 520. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KP5KR152D2DKRCS.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), in 383 U.S. 519, page 383 U.S. 520. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KP5KR152D2DKRCS.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966). cited in 1966, 383 U.S. 519, pp.383 U.S. 520. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KP5KR152D2DKRCS.
|