Legal Document

475 U.S. 809 106 S.Ct. 1578 89 L.Ed.2d 817 DENNISON MANUFACTURING COMPANYv.PANDUIT CORP. No. 85-1150. April 21, 1986. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent holds three patents for plastic cable ties, products that are commercially successful. Petitioner copied respondent's products, was sued patent infringement in the Northern District of Illinois, and defended on ground were invalid obviousness. The trial judge examined prior art, identified differences between art each at issue, concluded all improvements made by over would have been obvious to one skilled art. In course arriving this conclusion, recognized presumption validity must be overcome clear convincing evidence, patents' commercial success failure competitors develop equally successful inventions important factors weighing favor patents, addressing question obviousness a not pick choose isolated elements from combine them so as yield invention if such combination time invention. Nonetheless, found 2 Court Appeals Federal Circuit reversed. 774 F.2d 1082 (1985). court disagreed with Court's assessment ruled references cited did teach innovations introduced respondent, referred other errors Court. 3 contends ignored Rule Civil Procedure 52(a) substituting its view factual issues particular, petitioner complains rejection determination what revealed findings obvious. 4 Petitioner's claims insubstantial. As observed Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 1, 17-18, 86 684, 693-94, 15 545 (1966): 5 "While ultimate is law, . § 103 condition [that is, nonobviousness] lends itself several basic inquiries. Under 103, scope content determined; issue ascertained; level ordinary skill pertinent resolved. Against background, or nonobviousness subject matter determined. Such secondary considerations success, long felt but unresolved needs, others, etc., might utilized give light circumstances surrounding origin sought patented. indicia nonobviousness, these inquiries may relevancy." 6 This description inquiry makes it whether fact 52(a), subsidiary determinations Court, least, ought Rule. 7 Circuit, however, mention explicitly apply clearly-erroneous standard any obviousness, explain why, view, had no applicability issue. We therefore lack an adequate explanation basis Appeals' judgment: most importantly, we benefit Circuit's informed opinion complex degree which fact. absence clearly setting forth views matters, prepared plenary consideration petitioner's claim decision below cannot squared 52(a). Instead, grant petition certiorari, vacate judgment, remand case further 8 It ordered. 9 Justice MARSHALL dissents summary disposition, has ordered without affording parties notice opportunity file briefs merits. See Cuyahoga Valley R. Co. United Transportation Union, 474 3, 8, 286, 288, 88 (1985) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 2261, 2266, 76 794 (1983) dissenting).

Classification Label: 7