Brenner v. Manson
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Brenner_v._Manson an entity of type: Thing
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled that "a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility, so that a "specific benefit exists in currently available form" is thus the requirement for a claimed invention to qualify for a patent.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Brenner v. Manson
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson
xsd:integer
38418787
xsd:integer
910110634
rdf:langString
Harlan
rdf:langString
Douglas
rdf:langString
Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
519
xsd:integer
383
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-17
xsd:integer
1965
rdf:langString
Brenner v. Manson,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-21
xsd:integer
1966
rdf:langString
Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson
rdf:langString
Brenner v. Manson
rdf:langString
Fortas
rdf:langString
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled that "a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility, so that a "specific benefit exists in currently available form" is thus the requirement for a claimed invention to qualify for a patent. The case is known for the statement "a patent is not a hunting license."
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10404
