In what may be rival as the swiftest justice in the history of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 8, only two days after hearing oral arguments, the CAFC rejected Smuckers appeal. The case, in re Kretchman, was widely covered media and involved Smuckers attempt to obtain a broad patent on its Uncrustables(TM).
Rather than issuing an opinion, the court issued a per curium Rule 36 decision without opinion. Generally Rule 36 decisions are reserved for cases that are so clearly on one side of standing precedent that a written opinion is deemed unnecessary.
Link:
- Discussion of Oral Arguments
- Details on the Case
- The always irreverent Crescat Sententia has a post on the case by Raffi Melkonian who only now realizes that patent practice is actually quite fun.
Smucker’s Crustless PB&J didn’t pass the mustard with the CAFC
(Come to think of it, mustard on a PB&J sounds gross…)
As Tim reported last Wednesday, the Court of Appeals had a sticky situation on its hands when it was asked by the J.M. Smucker C
PB
The U.S. Patent Office has egg peanut butter and jelly on its face this week, but somewhere a Smuckers communications genius is smiling. Now that Judges Clevenger, Gajarsa
Can’t patent the crustless PB&J
Smuckers’ patent no. 6,004,596, which attempted to claim, inter alia:A sealed crustless sandwich, comprising: a first bread layer having a first perimeter surface coplanar to a contact surface; at least one filling of an edible…
Comments are closed.