United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements. It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - United States v. Adams (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements. It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- United States v. Bert N. Adams, et al. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart (en)
|
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - United States v. Adams, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - United States v. Bert N. Adams, et al. (en)
|
Holding
| - Wet battery including a combination of known elements not obvious because the operating characteristics were unexpected and improved over then-existing wet batteries. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - United States v. Adams (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements. It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court. (en)
|
googlescholar
| |
NotParticipating
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |