340 U.S. 147 (U.S. Supreme Court 1950)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v.
Whether a patent claiming a combination of old and well-known elements in a supermarket checkout counter is valid when the elements perform no new or different function in combination and the device achieves only a more convenient or efficient arrangement.
A patent may not be sustained for a mere aggregation of old elements performing no new or different function than previously performed by those elements. Under the pre-§ 103 "invention" standard (Hotchkiss), a combination must reflect more ingenuity than that of an ordinary mechanic skilled in the art and must contribute something beyond predictable results. Courts must scrutinize combination patents with special care, and secondary considerations such as commercial success, long-felt need, and copying cannot substitute for the absence of invention. A patent should add to the sum of useful knowledge and not withdraw known resources from the public domain.
The patent was invalid for want of invention because it merely combined old elements that performed their known functions, yielding no new or different functional result; the judgments upholding the patent were reversed.
A&P is a cornerstone in the law of combination patents and a precursor to the modern § 103 obviousness analysis. It introduces the enduring idea that a patentable combination must do more than assemble known parts—it must yield a result that, in a practical sense, goes beyond the predictable sum of the elements' prior functions. The case remains essential for understanding the limited weight of commercial success, the careful scrutiny courts apply to combinations of old elements, and the policy that patents should not enclose what skilled artisans already possess. Law students encounter A&P as a bridge from the pre-1952 "invention" doctrine to contemporary obviousness jurisprudence, including Anderson's-Black Rock, Sakraida, and KSR.