英美判例|Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City获得专利性条件的判定

发布时间：2018.05.16 北京市查看：2185 评论：0

英美判例|Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City获得专利性条件的判定来源：http://www.iphouse.cn/Material/show/id/279.html
作者：知产宝

案例导读

专利的创造性又称非显而易见性的判断确是专利法律中的一个关键而难以把握的法律问题。近三十年来美国专利的非显而易见性的判断都是遵循1966年美国最高法院在Graham v. John Deere 案中确立的原则，即从四方面的调查入手判断非显而易见性：（1）现有技术的范围与内容；（2）现有技术与权利要求的区别；（3）相关领域的一般技术水平；（4）补充考查。此标准又称“Graham标准” 。在该标准的原则和基本框架下，联邦巡回法院确立了具体的非显而易见性的判断准则--教导启示准则。

该案是Graham诉John Deere公司的专利侵权案，它涉及不同法院对“摇摆式犁柄夹具”这一项专利做出的不同判决，该发明是旧技术的组合物，包括犁柄上的一个减震装置，以便在通过多岩石的土壤时能够减震。

根据专利法第103条，联邦第八巡回区上诉法院认定Graham专利无效。此案中Graham设计的犁是新型的，具有专利法102条所要求的新颖性。但是否可获得专利权，法院认为，Graham的811号专利与798号专利除两点外，在其他所有要件上都是一样的，而这不同的两点并没有构成非显而易见的差别。法院认定，上诉人Graham的专利与现有技术的差别“远远低于非显而易见的差别” ，即Graham专利是无效的。申请专利的发明除了具备新颖性和实用性之外，还须对相关技术领域的一般技术人员表现出非显而易见的性质。

争议焦点

1、涉案专利是否具有非显而易见性？

2、涉案专利是否具备获得专利权的条件？

一审判决

地区法院支持了原告的上诉请求，并认定，Graham专利具备获得专利性的条件。

二审判决

联邦第八巡回上诉法院判定，Graham专利是无效的。Graham的811号专利与798号专利除两点外，在其他所有要件上都是一样的，而这不同的两点并没有构成非显而易见的差别。

最高法院判决

美国最高法院确立了判断标准“Graham标准”，从以下四个方面判断专利的非显而易见性：（1）现有技术的范围与内容；（2）现有技术与权利要求的区别；（3）相关领域的一般技术水平；（4）补充考查；并将该案发回重审。

?（鉴于微信篇幅限制，下文将仅对该案判决摘要[Syllabus]予以分享，对于判决理由的最初的、权威性的陈述，还请查阅法庭判决意见书[Opinion]）

核心关键词

Pertinent Art

Patent System

Ordinary Skill

U.S. Supreme CourtGraham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1(1966)

No. 11

Argued October 14, 1965

Decided February 21, 1966

Syllabus
Syllabus
Syllabus
Syllabus

In No. 11, petitioners sued for infringement of a patent, consisting of a combination of old mechanical elements, for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Here, the Eighth Circuit held that, since there was no new result in the combination, the patent was invalid. Petitioners in Nos. 37 and 43 filed actions for declaratory judgments declaring invalid respondent's patent relating to a plastic finger sprayer with a "hold-down" cap used as a built-in dispenser for containers with liquids, principally insecticides. By cross-action, respondent claimed infringement. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sustained the patent. Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in § 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid. Pp. 383 U. S. 3-37.

Page 383 U. S. 2

(a) In carrying out the constitutional command of Art. I, § 8, that a patent system "promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts," Congress established the two statutory requirements of novelty and utility in the Patent Act of 1793. Pp. 383 U. S. 3, 383 U. S. 6, 383 U. S. 12.

(b) This Court, in Hotchkis v. Greenoood, 11 How. 248 (1851), additionally conditioned the issuance of a patent upon the evidence of more ingenuity and skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business. P. 383 U. S. 11.

(c) In § 103 of the 1952 Patent Act, Congress added the statutory nonobvious subject matter requirement, originally expounded in Hotchkis,which merely codified judicial precedents requiring a comparison of the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, tying patentable inventions to advances in the art. Although § 103 places emphasis upon inquiries into obviousness, rather than into "invention," the general level of innovation necessary to sustain patentability remains unchanged under the 1952 Act. Pp. 383 U. S. 14-17.

(d) This section permit a more practical test of patentability. The determination of "nonobviousness" is made after establishing the scope and content of prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. P. 383 U. S. 17.

(e) With respect to each patent involved here, the differences between the claims in issue and the pertinent prior art would have been obvious to a person reasonably skilled in that art.Pp. 383 U. S. 25-26, 37.

333 F.2d 529, affirmed; 336 F.2d 110, reversed and remanded.

Page 383 U. S. 3