Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1966

Brenner v. Manson

383 U.S. 519 | 86 S. Ct. 1033 | 16 L. Ed. 2d 69 | 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2907

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that a chemical process satisfies patent law's utility requirement only when it produces a result with a specific, presently available practical benefit; a patent is not a reward for speculative research alone.

Background

Howard Ringold and George Rosenkranz obtained a patent for a process that made certain known steroid compounds. Later, chemist Andrew Manson applied to patent the identical process, claiming that he had invented it first and seeking an interference proceeding to determine priority.

The Patent Office denied Manson's application because he had not shown any practical utility for the steroid produced by the process. Manson relied on an article indicating that a chemically adjacent steroid homologue had tumor-inhibiting effects in mice, but the examiner and Board of Appeals concluded that this did not establish utility for Manson's particular steroid.

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed. It held that a process producing a known product need not be supported by proof of the product's utility, so long as the product was not shown to be detrimental to the public interest. The Commissioner of Patents sought Supreme Court review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had certiorari jurisdiction to review a patent decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals at the Commissioner's request.

Holding

Yes. Section 1256 authorized certiorari review of CCPA decisions, including a petition filed by the Commissioner of Patents.

Reasoning

The text of 28 U.S.C. § 1256 broadly provided that cases in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals could be reviewed by certiorari. Nothing in that language or its history supported Manson's proposed limitation that only dissatisfied patent applicants, and not the Commissioner, could seek review.

Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co. did not bar jurisdiction. Postum arose under an earlier statutory system in which the reviewing court's decision was effectively administrative and nonfinal because a later equity action could produce a conflicting determination. Congress materially changed that system in 1927 and 1929.

By the time of this case, the CCPA was an Article III court whose decisions were judicial, final, and binding in the ordinary sense. Thus, the constitutional premise of Postum no longer applied, and Congress's unqualified grant of certiorari jurisdiction should be given its natural scope.

Allowing review also avoided an irrational asymmetry. A patent applicant could challenge a Patent Office determination through a district-court action and ultimately obtain Supreme Court review, so the alternative route through the CCPA should likewise permit ultimate review by the Court.】【：】【“】【},{

Dissents

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan agreed that the Court had certiorari jurisdiction, but he would have affirmed on patentability. In his view, a new, nonobvious chemical process that works is itself a useful contribution to chemistry, even if no immediate commercial or therapeutic use for its product has yet been identified.

He found the majority's concern about an indeterminate or excessively broad monopoly unpersuasive. A process claim's boundaries are set by the claim itself, and knowing one present use for the resulting compound neither fixes those boundaries nor prevents later discoveries from greatly increasing the patent's value.

Harlan also thought the majority overstated the reasons disclosure would occur without a patent and the extent to which a patent would discourage others from discovering uses. Those objections apply to patents generally. By contrast, refusing patent protection could encourage chemists to keep new processes secret until someone discovered an end use.

Most importantly, Harlan emphasized the cumulative character of chemical research. A process or compound lacking a presently known end use may nevertheless enable another researcher to make the next discovery that produces a socially valuable result. He believed patent law should resolve uncertainty in favor of encouraging and publicizing that foundational research.

He further noted that the Patent Office had historically often treated chemical usefulness as inherent before its 1950 decision in Application of Bremner. Given that longstanding practice and the absence of clear congressional direction, Harlan would not adopt the majority's narrower utility rule without legislative action based on better empirical evidence.

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas agreed with the Court's jurisdictional ruling but dissented on the merits for substantially the reasons stated by Justice Harlan. He would have treated a workable, novel chemical process as sufficiently useful to support patentability, notwithstanding the absence of a demonstrated specific use for the compound it produced.