“Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights”



“Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights”

Fact

Curt is a basket ball player, and there is no one willing to play with him. He starts to play base ball alone, but when he throw the ball towards wall, it was not retrieving towards other direction. Latterly he found that when screen has manufactured from hard plastics then ball will quickly bounce back to the thrower. After having some successful practices, Curt applied for patent and receive patent for his invention.

Issue

After the invention of Curt, Randy also latterly developed the same product from his own and starts marketing for it. The issue is whether Curt's patent should not have been issued because the invention was an obvious.

Rule

The regular ion of obvious agreement is disclosed in the case Nadel v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2000). In this Case, the offending person was not compensated for the theft of his idea by the defendant.

The rule of obviousness has defined in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1966), John Deere requires a three-part factual analysis for making his decision.

“The scope of the preceding art has to be to be verified as, variations in the claims and the prior art has relates the issue are to be ascertain, and the level of common skill in the applicable art is to be resolved”. The protection of a patent does not matter even the proper filing approved after proper filing. The grant of patent protection can be very effective. Such protections can be preventing the reverse engineering that can be made by other people.

According to section, 35 USCS § 103, no patent will issue if “the matter of subject on the whole would be clear at the time of invention of patent, to ...