invention
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 314 U.S. 84 - Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · 1941Most cited · 1,312 citing opinions
patent law
the new device, however useful it may be, must reveal the flash of creative genius not merely the skill of the calling
How the Supreme Court has restated “invention”
Each Supreme Court definition of “invention,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “invention”
Court decisions citing the 7 opinions that defined “invention” — 4,531 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 7 definitions, chronological · 1930–1948
- 1930·282 U.S. 175 - Powers-Kenedy Contracting Corporation v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co[p32]· cited 376×ORIGINAL
Neither the combination of old elements or devices accomplishing no more than an aggregate of old results, nor the use of an old apparatus or appliance for a new purpose, is invention.
The application of an old process to a new and closely analogous subject-matter, plainly indicated by the prior art as an appropriate subject of the process, is not invention.
old process applied to new subject
Where there has been use of an article or where the method of its manufacture is known, more than a new advantage of the product must be discovered in order to claim invention. It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had discovered had qualities they failed to detect.
patent law
the subject-matter display 'invention', 'more ingenuity * * * than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art' ... some substantial innovation is necessary, an innovation for which society is truly indebted to the efforts of the patentee
no one of these three claims and no combination thereof evidences that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitutes the essential ingredient of a true invention
a product must be more than new and useful to be patented; it must also satisfy the requirements of invention or discovery.
patent law