Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/ and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.

1. Graham v. John Deere Co.
Patent Infringement
Presented by:
http://www.premiumessays.net/

2. Introduction
 The case was heard in the United States
Supreme Court in 1966.
 It acted as a clarification of non-obviousness
requirement of patent law in the United
States as set in 35 U.S.C.103.
 This case presented two consolidated
appeals.
 The appeals dealt with similar issues and they
originated from the same court.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

3. Case
 William T. Graham was a petitioner who was
suing John Deree Co. for infringement of
patent.
 Combination of different old mechanical
elements was the invention on which the case
was based.
 The device made by these mechanical
elements would work by absorbing shock
from chisel plow’s shanks while plowing on
rock soil.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

4.  Invention would keep the plow from sustaining
damage while plowing.
 Graham attached plow shanks to the spring clamps
enhancing flexibility beneath the plow’s frame.
 Graham applied for a patent of this clamp and he
obtained U.S Patent 2,493,811 in 1950.
 The court referred to this patent as the 811 patent.
 Later after obtaining this patent, he made more
improvements to the design of the clamp by placing
a hinge plate under the shark of the plow instead of
above the shark.
 This minimized outward motion of the plow shark
from the hinge plate.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

5. Graham Application
 On the basis of these improvements, Graham
applied for patent which he obtained in 1953.
 The patent was U.S. Patent 2,627,798.
 The court referred to it as 798 Patent.
 In the previous case, Graham’s patent was
upheld in the United States Court of Appeals
in the Fifth Circuit.
 United States District Court for Western
District of Missouri reversed this opinion.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

6.  The court invalidated the patent and noted that
no infringement had been made by John Deere
Co on the patent.
 The other actions were consolidated with
Graham case.
 They were declaratory judgments that had been
filed contemporaneously against the Cook
Chemical company.
 Calmar produced hold-down sprayers.
 These included chemicals like insecticides and
Colgate-Polmolive purchased them.
 Baxter I Scoggin Jr. who was an inventor applied
for patent of the sprayer that was designed for
the Cook Chemical company.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

7.  Colgate-Palmolive and Calmer sought a
declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of
this patent.
 This was while Cook Chemical Company sought
for action on the infringement basis.
 The District Court sustained the validity of patent
which was affirmed in the Eighth Circuit.
 It is apparent that validity of these patents is
based on facts.
 However, the problems in the cases are the clarity
of the statutory and constitutional provisions that
cover inventions’ patentability.
http://www.premiumessays.net/

8. For More Information About
Graham v. John Deere Co.
Patent Infringement
Visit:
http://www.premiumessays.net/