Patent infringement action. The invention at issue was a “post-mix†dispenser (stores beverage syrup concentrate and water separately until the beverage is ready to be dispensed) which imitated the visual appearance of a “pre-mix†dispenser (beverage syrup concentrate and water are pre-mixed and stored until the beverage is ready to be dispensed). The district court had granted summary judgment finding the patent at issue invalid based on a lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling was based on the district court’s view that “the invention lacked utility because its purpose was to increase sales by deception, i.e., through imitation of another product,†that any “claimed reasons for the patent's utility ‘are not independent of its deceptive purpose, and are thus insufficient to raise a disputed factual issue to present to a jury,’†and that the invention only improved the prior art to the extent that it increased the salability of post-mix dispensed beverages. Id. at 1366.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the invention had utility under § 101. First, the court noted that “{t}he threshold of utility is not high: An invention is “useful†under section 101 if it is capable of providing some identifiable benefit.†Id. Second, the court noted that “the principle that inventions are invalid if they are principally designed to serve immoral or illegal purposes has not been applied broadly in recent years.†Id. at 1366-67. Thus, noting that the invention at issue is not illegal, and that deception alone is not enough to render an invention unpatentable, the court held that “{t}e fact that one product can be altered to make it look like another is in itself a specific benefit sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of utility.†Id. at 1367.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Thursday 02 of October, 2008 13:45:49 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Thursday 02 of October, 2008 13:45:49 GMT by Unknown