graham v john deere co n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Graham v. John Deere Co. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Graham v. John Deere Co.

Graham v. John Deere Co.

218 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Graham v. John Deere Co.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co. J Jesus Castellanos Gonzalez Student ID 20772273 IEOR ITESM (Mexico) 5th Semester, Fall 2008 Since 1836

  2. Background • Case citation: 383 U.S.1 • 1966 • The named petitioner, William T. Graham • Prominent, John Deere Co. (PATENT INFRINGEMENT)

  3. Background of the Patent • Chisel plows were developed - areas where the ground is relatively free from rocks. • Some defects when working with rocks ( breaking ) • Graham, one of the petitioners, sought to meet that problem, and in 1950 obtained a patent, U.S. No. 2,493,811 (hereinafter '811). • Graham and his companies manufactured and sold the '811 clamps. In 1950, Graham modified the '811 structure and filed for a patent. That patent, the one in issue, was granted in 1953. This suit against competing plow manufacturers resulted from charges by petitioners that several of respondents' devices infringed the '798 patent. [383 U.S. 1, 22]  

  4. Invention in question • U.S. Patent No. 2,493,811 (1950), “Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows” :mechanical device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plow through rocky soil and thus to prevent damage to the plow.

  5. Shortly thereafter, he made some improvements to the clamp design by placing the hinge plate beneath the plow shank rather than above it, in order to minimize the outward motion of the shank away from the plate. • He applied for a patent on this improvement ('798 patent) (1953)

  6. In general, what is a plow? • A device that helps us working with the soil, forming a better seed bed and helps with moisture collecting surface. (form furrows) • Furrows help with erosion • The new plows work with tractors Evolving over time

  7. Patent Plan view of a plow constructed in accordance with the present invention Lever mechanism: to lower the plow frame Enlarged section through one of the tools mountings Working the ground

  8. Working position Producing chisel cuts in the furrows.

  9. End portion of the tool shank The degree of compression of the springs being regulated in accordance with the hardness of the soil to be plowed Parts of the unit arranged in spaced relative positions

  10. Remembering the patent • (1) the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate do not appear in 811; and (2) the position of the shank is reversed, being placed in patent 811 above the hinge plate .

  11. shank Hinge plate

  12. Invalid • The patent was invalid and that the John Deere Co. had not infringed upon it. • There was no new result in the patented combination and that the patent was. • Graham's '798 patent application contained 12 claims. All were rejected as not distinguished from the Graham '811 patent.

  13. Nonobviousness TSM • Thomas Jefferson: “patent law on the utilitarian economic concern of promoting technological innovation rather than protecting inventors’ moral rights to their discoveries “ • Requirement of nonobviousness • Preventing Monopoly • TSM (teaching / suggestion / motivation ) • There must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious.

  14. References

  15. CASE&court=US&vol=383&page=1