List of United States patent law cases
Encyclopedia
This is a list of notable patent law cases in the United States in chronological order. The cases have been decided notably by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court in the hierarchy of U.S. federal courts, patent cases only have the right of appeal to the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court will only review cases on a discretionary basis and rarely decides patent cases. Unless overruled by a Supreme Court case, Federal Circuit decisions can dictate the results of both patent prosecution and litigation as they are universally binding on all United States district court
s and the United States Patent and Trademark Office
.
:Category:United States copyright case law
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
-Vacancies and pending nominations:-List of former judges:-Chief judges:Notwithstanding the foregoing, when the court was initially created, Congress had to resolve which chief judge of the predecessor courts would become the first chief judge...
(CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office , which decides issues of patentability. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge is James Donald Smith.-Structure:...
(BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court in the hierarchy of U.S. federal courts, patent cases only have the right of appeal to the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court will only review cases on a discretionary basis and rarely decides patent cases. Unless overruled by a Supreme Court case, Federal Circuit decisions can dictate the results of both patent prosecution and litigation as they are universally binding on all United States district court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
s and the United States Patent and Trademark Office
United States Patent and Trademark Office
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is an agency in the United States Department of Commerce that issues patents to inventors and businesses for their inventions, and trademark registration for product and intellectual property identification.The USPTO is based in Alexandria, Virginia,...
.
Early cases (before 1900)
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodHotchkiss v. GreenwoodHotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 is a United States Supreme Court case of 1850. It was the first US Supreme Court case to introduce the concept of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in United States patent law. -External links:*...
- Supreme Court, 1850. Introduced the concept of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in U.S. patent law. - O'Reilly v. Morse - Supreme Court, 1853. Influential decision in the development of the law of patent-eligibility (Invalidating method claims for "abstract idea", where steps of method not tied to particular machine).
- City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that while the public use of an invention more than one year prior to the inventor's application for a patent normally causes the inventor to lose his right to a...
- Supreme Court, 1878. "Prior use" does not include experimental use. - Egbert v. LippmannEgbert v. LippmannEgbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it.-Facts and procedural history:...
- Supreme Court, 1881. Held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it. - Schillinger v. United StatesSchillinger v. United StatesSchillinger v. United States, , is an 1894 decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional...
- Supreme Court, 1894. Patent infringement against the United States.
1900–1949
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.- Facts :...
- Supreme Court, 1908. Established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent. - Bauer & Cie. v. O'DonnellBauer & Cie. v. O'DonnellBauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 was a United States Supreme Court decision involving licensing terms on patented works.Bauer & Cie sold Sanatogen, a patented water soluble albuminoid, with this notice on each bag:...
- Supreme Court, 1913. Patent licensing terms do not include dictating the price of the product. - Minerals Separation v. HydeMinerals Separation v. HydeMinerals Separation v. Hyde, , is a United States Supreme Court case.- Background :Minerals Separation, Limited obtained U.S. Patent No. 835,120, issued on November 6, 1906, to Henry Livingston Sulman, Hugh Fitzalis Kirkpatrick-Picard and John Ballot...
- Supreme Court, 1916. Holding valid claims directed to critical proportions of oil to ore in a concentrating ore. - United States v. General Electric Co.United States v. General Electric Co.United States v. General Electric Co. is a 1926 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product.-Background:GE owned three...
- Supreme Court, 1926. A patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product. - McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. - US 9th circuit, 1929. (Notability unclear)
- Ex Parte QuayleEx Parte QuayleEx parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213 is a United States patent law decision. When a patent application is in condition for allowance, prosecution on the merits is closed. At this time, further amendments of the patent application are allowed only to correct formal objections,...
- 1935. Decision related to the patent application process. - Altvater v. FreemanAltvater v. FreemanAltvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that, although a licensee had maintained payments of royalties, a Declaratory Judgment Act claim of invalidity of the licensed patent still presented a justiciable case or controversy.-See...
- Supreme Court, 1943. Although a licensee had maintained payments of royalties, a claim of invalidity of the licensed patent still presented a justiciable case or controversy. - Sinclair & Carrol Co. v. Interchemical Corporation - Supreme Court, 1945. Selection of a chemical from a catalog based on predetermined qualifications is obvious.
- Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent....
- Supreme Court, 1948. A facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent.
1950–1969
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , is a patent case decided by the United States Supreme Court...
- Supreme Court, 1950. Only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is a combination of old elements patentable. - Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 , was an important United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, and explaining how and when it was to be used.-Facts:The plaintiff Linde Air Products...
- Supreme Court, 1950. Introduced the doctrine of equivalentsDoctrine of equivalentsThe doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed...
. - In re Aller - CCPA, 1955. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
- Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court redefined the U.S. patent law doctrine of repair and reconstruction...
- Supreme Court, 1961. Redefined the doctrine of repair and reconstructionDoctrine of repair and reconstructionThe doctrine of repair and reconstruction in United States patent law distinguishes between permissible repair of a patented article, which the right of an owner of property to preserve its utility and operability guarantees, and impermissible reconstruction of a patented article, which is patent... - Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. KutherWilbur-Ellis Co. v. KutherWilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. to enhancement of function.- Background :...
- Supreme Court, 1964. Extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. - Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., is a 1964 United States Supreme Court decision that was a companion case to Sears v. Stiffel, which the Court decided on the same day...
- Supreme Court, 1964. Held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law. - Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent....
- Supreme Court, 1964. Companion to Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.. - United States v. AdamsUnited States v. AdamsUnited States v. Adams, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements...
- Supreme Court, 1965. Wet battery including a combination of known elements not obvious because the operating characteristics were unexpected and improved over then-existing wet batteries. - Graham v. John Deere Co.Graham v. John Deere Co.Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, set forth in .-Facts and procedural history:...
- Supreme Court, 1966. Clarified the requirement of nonobviousness. - Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., , is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions...
- Supreme Court, 1969. Related to obviousness. - Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsLear, Inc. v. AdkinsLear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 , is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the doctrine of licensee estoppel and holding that public interest considerations require that licensees be free to challenge the validity of possibly spurious patents under which they are licensed. This...
- Supreme Court, 1969. Overturned the doctrine of licensee estoppelLicensee estoppelLicensee estoppel was a U.S. patent law doctrine, now overturned, that a licensee under a patent would not be permitted to challenge the validity of the patent. The Supreme Court, in Lear, Inc. v...
.
1970–1979
- Gottschalk v. BensonGottschalk v. BensonGottschalk v. Benson, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm...
- Supreme Court, 1972. Held that an algorithmAlgorithmIn mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is an effective method expressed as a finite list of well-defined instructions for calculating a function. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning...
is not patentable if the claim would preempt all uses of the algorithm. - Honeywell v. Sperry RandHoneywell v. Sperry RandHoneywell, Inc. v. Mc'Donalds., et al. 180 USPQ 673 was a landmark U.S. federal court case that in April 1973 invalidated the 1964 patent for the ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose electronic digital computer, thus putting the invention of the electronic digital computer into the public...
- 1973. Invalidated the 1964 patent for the ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose electronic digital computer, thus putting the invention of the electronic digital computer into the public domain. - United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. is a 1973 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on...
- Supreme Court, 1973. Relation between patent law and antitrust law. - Dann v. Johnston - Supreme Court, 1976. Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility).
- Sakraida v. Ag ProSakraida v. Ag ProSakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. The patent application taught a method of cleaning barn floors...
- Supreme Court, 1976. Arranging old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform fell under the head of "work of the skillful mechanic, not of that of the inventor". - In re Wertheim - United States Court of Customs AppealsUnited States Court of Customs and Patent AppealsThe United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is a former United States federal court which existed from 1909 to 1982 and had jurisdiction over certain types of civil disputes.-History:...
, 1976. Where a claim range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. - In re Antonie - Federal Circuit, 1977. A parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable before a determination of routine experimentation.
- Parker v. FlookParker v. FlookParker v. Flook, was a 1978 United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that an invention that departs from the prior art only in its use of a mathematical algorithm is patent-eligible only if the implementation is novel and unobvious. The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part...
- Supreme Court, 1978. Ruled that a mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application itself is not novel.
1980–1989
- Diamond v. ChakrabartyDiamond v. ChakrabartyDiamond v. Chakrabarty, , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented.-Background:...
- Supreme Court, 1980. Ruled that a genetically modified micro-organisms can be patented. - Diamond v. DiehrDiamond v. DiehrDiamond v. Diehr, , was a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that the execution of a physical process, controlled by running a computer program was patentable...
- Supreme Court, 1981. Ruled that the execution of a process, controlled by running a computer program was patentable. - MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech...
- Supreme Court, 1983 onwards. Involving a fundamental technology required for the artificial synthesis of antibody molecules. - Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner - Federal Circuit, 1985. Prima facie obvious when claims ranges are close to prior art ranges.
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding a state anti-plug molding law preempted because it partially duplicated and therefore interfered with federal patent law. The decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s earlier...
- Supreme Court, 1989. State law partially duplicating and therefore interfering with federal patent law.
1990–1999
- In re Woodruff - Federal Circuit, 1990. Hold that claim limited to "more than 5%" prima facie obvious over prior art teaching "about 1-5%".
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc., , is a United States Supreme Court case related to Patent infringement in the Medical device industry...
- Supreme Court, 1990. Held that premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is exempted from a finding of infringement. - Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc.Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc.Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 , is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine, for example in Bauer &...
- CAFC, 1992. The court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of US Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine. - Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 , is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact...
- Supreme Court, 1996. Held that an issue [of claims interpretation/construction] designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge [and subject to de novoDe novoIn general usage, de novo is a Latin expression meaning "from the beginning," "afresh," "anew," "beginning again." It is used in:* De novo transcriptome assembly, the method of creating a transcriptome without a reference genome...
review by appellate court], and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury. - Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.-Facts:The plaintiff Hilton Davis...
- Supreme Court, 1997. Updated the doctrine of equivalents. - In re Geisler - Federal Circuit, 1997. Claim reciting "50 to 100 Angstroms" prima facie obvious in view of prior art teaching that the it should be no less than 100 Angstroms.
- State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group - CAFC, 1998. Defined the scope of a business method patentBusiness method patentBusiness method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the...
. - Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.-Background of the case:...
- Supreme Court, 1998. Determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.
2000–2004
- Ex Parte BowmanEx Parte BowmanEx Parte Bowman 61 USPQ 2d 1669 was a decision by the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which asserted that in order to be patent-eligible, a process had to involve or promote the technological arts...
- BPAI, 2001. Later overturned by Ex Parte LundgrenEx Parte LundgrenEx parte Lundgren is a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences , that asserts that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States. They do, however,...
(2004) - Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States...
- Supreme Court, 2002. Related to the doctrine of equivalentsDoctrine of equivalentsThe doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed...
. - MVDDS disputeMVDDS disputeThe MVDDS dispute refers to several legal disputes and political controversies that surrounded Federal Communications Commission approval of MVDDS terrestrial wireless broadband technology. The controversy arose over the lobbying efforts of Northpoint Technology, a developer of MVDDS, to receive...
- 2002 onwards. - Immersion v. SonyImmersion v. SonyIn 2002, Sony and Microsoft were sued by Immersion for patent infringement for the use of vibration functions in their gaming controllers. Specifically, they were accused of infringing on claims in and...
- 2002. Related to vibration functions in their gaming controllers. Dropped in 2007. - In re Peterson - Federal Circuit, 2003. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
- Ex Parte LundgrenEx Parte LundgrenEx parte Lundgren is a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences , that asserts that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States. They do, however,...
- BPAI, 2004. Found that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable. - Iron Grip Barbell Co, Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc - Federal Circuit, 2004. Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness by showing that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention or that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.
Since 2005
- Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. 421 F.3d 981 was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that an End User License Agreement on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the...
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
, 2005. Found that end-user license agreements (EULA) are enforceable in some cases. - In re Harris - Federal Circuit, 2005. Claimed ranges that overlap prior art range are prima facie obvious.
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. - Supreme Court, 2005. Related to Research exemptionResearch exemptionIn patent law, the research exemption or safe harbour exemption is an exemption to the rights conferred by patents, which is especially relevant to drugs...
. - LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.is a Federal Circuit case. LizardTech sued Earth Resource Mapping for patent infringement related to taking discrete wavelet transforms in their ER Mapper program. The court ruled in ERM's favor, finding that some of the claims were invalid, and that ER Mapper did not infringe the other claims...
- Federal Circuit, 2005. Related to the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. - Alcatel-Lucent v. MicrosoftAlcatel-Lucent v. MicrosoftLucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc. 470 F.Supp.2d 1180 is a patent case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The litigation money...
- 2006. Multiple lawsuits over several patents relating to MP3MP3MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III, more commonly referred to as MP3, is a patented digital audio encoding format using a form of lossy data compression...
encoding and compression technologies. - Ariad v. LillyAriad v. LillyAriad v. Lilly is a United States court case in which Eli Lilly was found to have infringed held by Ariad Pharmaceuticals...
- 2006. Broad infringement case related to a ubiquitous transcription factorTranscription factorIn molecular biology and genetics, a transcription factor is a protein that binds to specific DNA sequences, thereby controlling the flow of genetic information from DNA to mRNA...
. - EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that...
- Supreme Court, 2006. Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement. - Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to "tying" arrangements of patented products...
- Supreme Court, 2006. Related to "tying" arrangements of patented products. - KSR v. TeleflexKSR v. TeleflexKSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.-Case history:...
- Supreme Court, 2007. Concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. - Microsoft v. AT&TMicrosoft v. AT&TMicrosoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 , was a United States Supreme Court case that restricts the extraterritorial reach of U.S. patent law. A section of U.S. patent law, , lets the holder of a U.S. patent block the export from the U.S...
- Supreme Court, 2007. Related to international enforceability of U.S. software patents. - TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2006-1574 (Fed. Cir., January 31, 2008)TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology...
- Was the base for the development of a new test for contempt with regards to repeated patent infringement. - SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. was a patent infringement case which determined whether technical documents placed on a company's FTP server could be considered prior art as defined by . The United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which had held four...
CAFC, 2008. Set precedent as to whether unpublished papers stored on FTP servers constituted a prior artPrior artPrior art , in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality...
bar. - Quanta v. LG Electronics - Supreme Court, 2008. Patent exhaustionFirst-sale doctrine (patent)Under the exhaustion doctrine, doctrine of exhaustion, or first sale doctrine, the first unrestricted sale of a patented item exhausts the patentee's control over that particular item...
and its applicability to certain types of method patentsBusiness method patentBusiness method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the...
. - Bilski v. KapposBilski v. KapposBilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 561 US __, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an...
- Supreme Court, 2009. Re-focused subject-matter eligibility test on the three judicial exclusions “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” - Ecolab v. FMCEcolab v. FMCEcolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335 , is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .- Background:...
- CAFC, 2009. - Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. 587 F.3d 1324 , is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court held that a patent can be invalidated due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims...
-CAFC. Applies KSR-style obviousness analysis to invalidate a patent.
See also
- United States patent lawUnited States patent lawUnited States patent law was established "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as provided by the United States Constitution. Congress implemented these...
- List of patent case law
- Doctrine of the General Talking Pictures CaseDoctrine of the General Talking Pictures CaseThe Doctrine of the General Talking Pictures Case is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in General Talking Pictures Corp. v...
, a doctrine based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision
:Category:United States copyright case law
External links
- "The History of Software Patents", Bitlaw, Beck & Tysver, 2007