Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
724 F.2d 965 (1984)


Facts

TP Laboratories, Inc. (TP) (plaintiff) was an orthodontics supplier. TP developed orthodontic devices for its own practice and sold devices to other orthodontic practices. In 1956, one of TP’s orthodontists created a device that helped position teeth to correct orthodontic irregularities. The device featured springs to hold teeth in a desired location, and patients would wear the device for several hours a day over a span of years. In 1956, the device was used on a patient for the first time for two months. Another patient was treated with the device in 1959, and the device was used intermittently for over two years. A third patient was treated with the device in 1961. In 1962, the orthodontist filed a patent application for the invention, and the patent was assigned to TP in 1965. TP later brought a patent-infringement suit against Professional Positioners, Inc. (defendant), but the district court found that TP’s patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) due to public use of the device prior to the critical date, which was one year before the application date. TP appealed the decision, arguing that TP’s prior use of the device was merely experimental and did not trigger the public-use bar to patentability.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Nies, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.