Legal Opinion
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 13, 1957No. 15589PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEMMON, Circuit Judge.
Twilight is falling upon “gadgets” as subjects of patents. The dusk commenced to gather half a dozen years ago when, in an epochal decision,1 the Supreme Court fixed its canon against dignifying combined “segments of prior art” with the title of “inventions”.
In a concurring opinion in that case, Mr. Justice Douglas compiled a devastating list of “gadgets” that have been placed “under the armour of patents”.2 The specification at bar proclaims at the outset that it is a “drain slot which forms the basis of this invention”. If the trivial devices listed by Mr. Justice…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Smith v. SnowSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., Hutzler Mfg. Co., and C. B. Cotton & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Talon, Inc. v. Union Slide Fastener, Inc., Union Slide Fastener, Inc. v. Talon, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Cee-Bee Chemical Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Delco Chemicals, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.