1. S I P
Synoptic IP’s knowledge repository and news section
Graham v. John Deere Co. was a suit for the violation of a patent that comprised
of a combo of old mechanical components for a gadget intended to assimilate
stun from plow shanks in rough soil with a specific end goal to counteract harm
to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent substantial, deciding that a
synthesis is patentable when it handles an "old result about a less expensive and
overall more beneficial way."
The Court held that they did not bring down the benchmarks needed for the patentability of a development by
adding an investigation into conspicuousness to the statutory necessities of variety and utility. The Court found
that area 103 of the 1952 Patent Act Congress included the statutory no obvious topic prerequisite, the
determination of which is made in the wake of making the extension and substance of earlier workmanship, the
contrasts between the former symbolization and the cases at issue, and the level of conventional ability in the
germane art.
The Court inferred that the licenses don't meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter to be
protected" to an individual having standard aptitude in the relevant symbolization were in this way invalid. This
confirmed the decision in Graham v. John Deere Co. furthermore switched the other two.
The case was a merged appeal of two cases, starting in the same court and managing comparative issues. The
named applicant, William T. Graham, had sued the John Deere Co. for patent infringement. The creation being
referred to was a fusion of old mechanical components: a gadget intended to assimilate stun from the shanks of
etch drives as they drive through rough soil and subsequently to counteract harm to the furrow. Graham tried
to tackle this issue by connecting the plow shanks to spring cinches, to permit them to flex uninhibitedly
underneath the edge of the furrow. He requested a patent on this brace, and in 1950, got a patent (alluded to
by the Court as the '811 patent).
Presently from there on, Graham made a few upgrades to the clip plan by setting the
pivot plate underneath the plow shank instead of above it, with a specific end goal
to minimize the outward movement of the shank far from the plate. He requested a
patent on this change, which was allowed in 1953 (alluded to by the Court as the
'798 patent).
While Graham's patent had been maintained in a past case for the Fifth Circuit
before the U.S. Court, it was held by the eight circuits that the patent was entirely
invalid and that the John Deere Co. had not encroached upon it.
Synoptic IPSimplified Solutions
© 2013 – 2014 Synoptic Intellectual Patents Private Limited. All Rights Reserved.
ART008 – 3rd May, 2014
Synoptic IP News updates and articles
Non-obviousness: As explained by means of Graham v. John Deere
Co.
US Supreme court ruling:
“The non-obviousness
requirement set forth in 35
U.S.C. §103 was meant to
codify the previous common
law requirement that an
invention be a significant
improvement in the art..”

2. For a free trial of our services, please write us at
info@synopticip.com OR
Synoptic Intellectual Patents Pvt. Ltd.
G1 Ideal House 69
Nehru Place, New Delhi
Delhi-110019
+91-120-454-1298 (India), +44 2032873323 (UK)
Patentability/Novelty Search
InvaliditySearch
Patent Drafting
State-of-the-Art/Landscape Analysis
Infringer identification
Technology Trend Analysis
Freedom-to-OperateSearch
Claim Charting/EoU IdentificationPatent Docketing
Synoptic IP Simplified searching solution to your IP
www.synopticip.com
Synoptic IP
SimplifiedSolutions
Patent Prosecution Support
• Patentability/ Novelty search
• Patent drafting
• Illustrations/ Drawing
Preparation
• Office Action Response
• Infringement Search
• Claim charting/ EoU Identification
• Freedom-to-Operate Search
• Infringers/ Licensee identification
• State-of-the-Art/ Landscape
Analysis
• Technology Trend Analysis
• White space/ spot analysis
• Patent Filing in India
• Patent Docketing
• Proof Reading
• Alerts and Watches
Synoptic IP, is an Intellectual Property Research firm based in India, providing efficacious patent research services to their clients across the globe. We bring a
team of dedicated technical experts hailing from meritorious academic backgrounds, committed to provide a diverse range of patent research services.
We provide the highest standards of quality assurance to clients with our in-depth understanding of the subject matter in hand and suitably customized services
pertaining to varied domains of science and technology. Our state-of-the-art methodologies help us maintain and appraise the quality of a project at every break
point and consign precise, glitch-free reports to our clients.
About Synoptic IP
Research and Analytics Patent Litigation and Licensing support Other service
Read more
For more details, please contact:
Ankit Saxena, Director – Research
ankit.saxena@synopticip.com
+91-9560266647
The decision was essentially based on the “non-obviousness” criteria which prior to Patent Act 1952, was
not one of the key criteria for patentability however, based on the Patent Act 1952, Graham patent was held
invalid in the infringement suit.