25 U.S.C. § 103
Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, § 1, 46 Stat. 1028
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997).
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997). “1986) (“To suggest that [a patentee’s] new combination ‘is not necessarily an invention’ or otherwise to require some concept of ‘inventiveness’ or ‘flash of genius’ for patentability would improperly misplace the focus of 25 U.S.C. § 103”). Paragon has not proven under the…”
Application of William C. Anthony, 414 F.2d 1383 (C.C.P.A. 1969). “101” and of claims 1-6, 11, and 12 as obvious under 25 U.S.C. § 103 in view of certain prior art.”
APPLIED MATERIAL v. Tokyo Seimitsu, Co., Ltd., 446 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D. Va. 2006). “§ 102 (e) by prior art disclosed or under 25 U.S.C. § 103 as a trivial and obvious variation.”
Fastship, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “renders the [two patents] obvious under 25 U.S.C. § 103 .” FastShip III, 131 Fed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.