Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (340 U.S. 147)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 4, 1950 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 340 U.S. 147 · 71 S. Ct. 127
- Docket
- No. 32
- Argued
- October 18, 1950
- Decided
- December 4, 1950
- Term
- October Term 1950
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Jackson (R.H.)
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote), Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Black
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. Two courts below have concurred in holding three patent claims to be valid, and it is stipulated that, if valid, they have been infringed. The issue, for the resolution of which we granted certiorari, is whether they applied correct criteria of invention. We hold that they have not, and that by standards appropriate for a combination patent these claims are invalid. Stated without artifice, the claims assert invention of a cashier’s counter equipped with a three-sided frame, or rack, with no top or bottom, which, when pushed or pulled, will move groceries deposited within it by a customer to the checking clerk and leave them there when it is pushed back to repeat the operation. It is kept on the counter by guides. That the resultant device works as claimed, speeds the customer on his way, reduces checking costs for the merchant, has been widely adopted and successfully used, appear beyond dispute. The District Court explicitly found that each element in this device was known to prior art. “However,” it found, “the conception of a counter with an extension to receive a bottomless self-unloading tray with which to push the contents of the tray in front of the cashier was a decidedly novel feature and constitutes a new and useful combination.” The Court of Appeals regarded this finding of invention as one of fact, sustained…
Excerpt of a 19,784-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.