Confirm favorite deletion?
Patent Law Keyed to Adelman
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Loren C. Covington and Howard R. Palmer developed an alloy which they filed an application to patent. Afterwards they licensed their patent application and the invention to their employer, Titanium Metals Corp. of America. The alloy contains mainly titanium with a small amount of other metals and no iron. The application contained three claims related to the alloy and its chosen compositions. The examiner rejected the claims, finding claims 1 and 2 were anticipated by a Russian article related to alloys like the claims at issue, and claim 3 would have been obvious after reading the article. Plaintiff appealed the examiner's decision to the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals ("Board"), which affirmed the rejection but mistakenly assumed all three claims were anticipated by the Russian article. The Board decided the claims were not new because the technical Russian article revealed and described the alloys in these claims. The article did not discuss the corrosion resistance of the alloy, which is one of the claims submitted, but which the Board determined was not significant to the claim having been anticipated. Plaintiff brought a civil action against Defendant in the District Court. After considering the Plaintiff's expert witness testimony along with the pre-trail and post-trial briefs, the Court ordered Defendant to issue the patent based on claims 1 and 2. Defendant appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.