Lexplug logoLexplug

Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.

Supreme Court of United States
425 U.S. 273 (1976)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A patent for a combination of old and known elements is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the combination would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art and does not produce a new or different function.


Facts:

  • Systems using flowing water to clean animal waste from barn floors were well-known and had been in use for a long time.
  • Prior art systems typically used high-pressure hoses or pipes for spot delivery of water, which required supplemental manual labor with shovels and brooms to complete the cleaning.
  • Gribble and Bennett developed a water flush system for dairy barns that combined several known components: a sloped, paved floor with a drain, and a means to store a large pool of water above the floor.
  • The key feature of the Gribble and Bennett system was the mechanism for an abrupt release of the stored water, creating a sheet-like flow that washed all manure into the drains within minutes without needing supplemental labor.
  • Ag Pro, Inc., the assignee of the patent, conceded that all thirteen individual elements of the patented system were old and previously known within the dairy industry.
  • The only claimed inventive feature was the specific combination of these old elements to create the rapid, widespread flushing action.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ag Pro, Inc. sued Sakraida for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (a federal trial court).
  • The District Court initially granted summary judgment for Sakraida.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.
  • After a trial, the District Court again entered a judgment for Sakraida, finding the patent invalid for being obvious.
  • The Court of Appeals again reversed the District Court, holding that the patent was valid.
  • On rehearing, the Court of Appeals remanded for the District Court to consider a motion for a new trial based on new evidence, but reaffirmed its holding on the patent's validity.
  • The District Court granted Sakraida's motion for a new trial.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of a new trial and once again reaffirmed that the patent was valid.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' holding on patent validity.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a patent valid for a dairy barn cleaning system that combines pre-existing elements, such as a sloped floor and a method for the abrupt release of water, to achieve a more efficient cleaning result?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan

No, the patent is not valid. A patent for a combination of old elements is not valid if the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The combination of a sloped floor and a rapid-release water system, while commercially successful and more efficient, is merely the work of a skillful mechanic, not an inventor. This arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, does not create a synergistic result or a new or different function, and is therefore obvious and not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.



Analysis:

This case reinforces the high standard for obtaining a combination patent and clarifies the application of the non-obviousness test from Graham v. John Deere Co. The Court's rejection of the 'synergistic result' argument signifies that a combination of old elements must do more than just work better or achieve commercial success to be patentable; it must produce a truly new or unexpected function. This decision serves to prevent the withdrawal of known elements and obvious combinations from the public domain, thus narrowing the scope of what is considered a patentable invention. It solidifies the principle that assembling old parts in a way that would be obvious to a skilled practitioner does not rise to the level of invention required by patent law.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. (1976) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.