List of United States Supreme Court patent case law

This is an incomplete list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the area of patent law.

Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
19th century
Tyler v. Tuel 10 U.S. 324 1810 Patent Act of 1793 Assignee of geographically limited patent right could not bring action in their own name.
Evans v. Jordan 13 U.S. 199 1815 Patent Act of 1800, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans
Evans v. Eaton16 U.S. 454 1818 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans
Evans v. Eaton20 U.S. 356 March 20, 1822 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans A patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art.
Evans v. Hettich20 U.S. 453 1822 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans
Pennock v. Dialogue 1829
Gayler v. Wilder51 U.S. 477 1850 Novelty means knowledge or use accessible to the public.
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood52 U.S. 248 1850 Introduced the concept of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in U.S. patent law.
O'Reilly v. Morse56 U.S. 62 1853 Patent-eligibility: patent-eligibility (Invalidating method claims for "abstract idea", where steps of method not tied to particular machine). Undue patent claim breadth: Patent-holder can only hold patent on the steps taken, not on any means to the result.
Winans v. Denmead56 U.S. 330 1853 Established doctrine of equivalents: Even if not literally within the claims, an invention infringes if it arrives at the same result in the same way.
Godfrey v. Eames 68 U.S. 317 1863 Continuing application.
Seymour v. Osborne 78 U.S. 516 1870 Prior art must enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to make and use the invention.
Cochrane v. Deener94 U.S. 780 1876 (March 19, 1877) Patentability.
City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.97 U.S. 126 1878 "Prior use" does not include experimental use.
Trade-Mark Cases100 U.S. 8218799 - 0 Constitutional basis for trademark regulationMajority:
Miller (unanimous)		The Copyright/Patent Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks.
Egbert v. Lippmann 104 U.S. 333 1881 Public use of an invention bars patent.
Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. 113 U.S. 59 1885
Rowell v. Lindsay 113 U.S. 97 1885
Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co. 113 U.S. 157 1885
Voss v. Fisher 113 U.S. 213 1885
Schillinger v. United States 155 U.S. 163 1894 Patent infringement against the United States.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1900-1920
Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Company __ U.S. ___1900
Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company __ U.S. __ 1902
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. 210 U.S. 405 1908 Established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.
Leeds and Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company __ U.S. __ 1909
Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford General Fireproofing Company v. Expanded Metal Company __ U.S. __ 1909
Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company __ U.S. __ 1911
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. 224 U.S. 1 1912 The Court found contributory infringement for the sale of the defendant's ink with patent owners machine.
Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company v. Wagner Electric and Manufacturing Company __ U.S. __ 1912
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell 229 U.S. 1 1913 Patent licensing terms do not include dictating the price of the product.
The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Company __ U.S. __ 1913
Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company & Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Smith __ U.S. __ 1915
Minerals Separation v. Hyde 242 U.S. 261 1916 Holding valid claims directed to critical proportions of oil to ore in a concentrating ore.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co. 241 U.S. 257 1916
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. 243 U.S. 502 1917 Holding unenforceable a restriction that a user of a patented film projector must use it to screen only such films as the patentee authorized
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1921-1959
United States v. General Electric Co. 272 U.S. 476 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.
Carbice Corp. v. Patents Development Corp. 283 U.S. 27 1931
Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Dev. Co. 283 U.S. 420 1931
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. 304 U.S. 175 1938 Upholding enforceability of field-of-use limitations in a patent license
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.305 U.S. 111 1938 Once a patent has expired, the benefits of the invention are to be enjoyed by the public and may not be extended by trademark.
Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. 314 U.S. 488 1942 Patent misuse.
United States v. Univis Lens Co.316 U.S. 241 1942 Explaining the exhaustion doctrine and applying it to find an antitrust violation because Univis' ownership of patents did not exclude its restrictive practices from the antitrust laws.
Altvater v. Freeman 319 U.S. 359 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 325 U.S. 327 1945 Selection of a chemical from a catalog based on predetermined qualifications is obvious.
Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co. 329 U.S. 637 Feb. 3, 1947
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. 333 U.S. 127 1948 A facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon aroof nature is not eligible for a patent.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. 340 U.S. 147 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. 339 U.S. 605 1950 Introduced the doctrine of equivalents.
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Eqpt. Co. 342 U.S. 180 1952
Besser Mfg. v. United States___ U.S. ____ 1952 Compulsory licensing remedy in patent antitrust case; joint agreement not to license (veto)
Sanford v. Kepner___ U.S. ____ 1952
U.S. Gypsum v. National Gypsum __ U.S. __ 1957
Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. 353 U.S. 222 1957
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1960-1969
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (Aro I) 365 U.S. 336 Feb. 27, 1961 Redefined the doctrine of repair and reconstruction
Schnell v. Eckrich & Sons __ U.S. __ 1961
Glidden v. Zdanok 370 U.S. 530 1962 CPPA court
White Motor v. US __ U.S. __ 1963 antitrust, tying
Sperry v. Florida __ U.S. __ 1963 patent practice
US v. Singer __ U.S. __ 1963 Sherman Act
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther 377 U.S. 422 1964 Extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. 376 U.S. 225 1964 Companion to Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.. State unfair competition law.
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. 376 U.S. 234 1964 Held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law.
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (Aro II) 377 U.S. 476 1964
Wilbur-Ellis Co. et al. v. Kuther 377 U.S. 422 1964
Brulotte v. Thys __ U.S. __ 1964 Royalties after expiration of patent non-enforceable
Walker Process v. Food Mach. & Chem. __ U.S. __ 1965 antitrust
Hazeltine v. Brenner __ U.S. __ 1965 prior art
Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. 1 Feb. 21, 1966 Clarified the requirement of nonobviousness.
United States v. Adams 383 U.S. 39 Feb. 21, 1965 Wet battery including a combination of known elements not obvious because the operating characteristics were unexpected and improved over then-existing wet batteries.
Brenner v. Manson 383 U.S. 519 March 21, 1966
Zenith Radio v. Hazeltine (Zenith I) __ U.S. __ 1969
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins 395 U.S. 653 1969 Overturned the doctrine of licensee estoppel.
Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. 396 U.S. 57 1969 Related to obviousness.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1970-1979
Zenith Radio v. Hazeltine (Zenith II) 401 U.S. 321 1971 Patent misuse.
Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois __ U.S. __ 1971 Collateral estoppel.
Deepsouth v. Laitram __ U.S. __ 1972
Brunette v. Kockum __ U.S. __ 1972
Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63 1972 Held that an algorithm is not patentable if the claim would preempt all uses of the algorithm.
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. 410 U.S. 52 1973 Relation between patent law and antitrust law.
Kewanee Oil v. Bicron 416 U.S. 470 1974 State trade secret law not preempted by patent law.
Dann v. Johnston 425 U.S. 219 1976 Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility).
Sakraida v. Ag Pro 425 U.S. 273 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".
Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584 1978 Ruled that a mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application itself is not novel.
Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil 440 U.S. 257 1979
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1980-1989
Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 U.S. 303 1980 Patentable subject matter: A genetically-modified micro-organism is patentable.
Dawson Chem. v. Rohm & Haas __ U.S. __ 1980 Patent misuse.
Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. 175 1981 The execution of a process, controlled by running a computer program was patentable.
General Motors v. Devex __ U.S. __ 1983
Dennison Manufacturing v. Panduit __ U.S. __ 1986 Nonobviousness standard of review
Christianson v. Colt 486 U.S. 800 1988 Federal Circuit jurisdiction.
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 1989 State law partially duplicating and therefore interfering with federal patent law. Reaffirmed Stiffel.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
1990-1999
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. 496 U.S. 661 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.
Cardinal Chemical v. Morton __ U.S. __ 1993
Asgrow v. Winterboer __ U.S. __ 1995 PVPA
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. 517 U.S. 370 1996 Held that an issue [of claims interpretation/construction] designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge [and subject to de novo 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. 520 U.S. 17 1997. Updated the doctrine of equivalents.
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. 525 U.S. 55 1998 Determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.
Dickinson v. Zurko 527 U.S. 150 1999 APA standards of review; PTO fact-finding gets "substantial evidence" standard on review
Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank 527 U.S. 627 1999 Unconstitutional for Congress to eliminate states' 11th Amendment sovereign immunity against patent infringements.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
2000-2009
Nelson v. Adams 529 U.S. 460 2000 Procedure.
J.E.M. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred 534 U.S. 124 2001 Utility patents & plant patents. Plant breeds are patentable subject matter.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. 535 U.S. 722 2002 In the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel creates only a rebuttable presumption against infringement.
Holmes Group v. Vornado 535 U.S. 826 2002 Patent issues raised in counterclaim do not give rise to Federal Circuit jurisdiction
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. 545 U.S. 193 2005 Related to Research exemption.
EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388 2006 Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. 547 U.S. 28 2006 Related to "tying" arrangements of patented products.
LabCorp v. Metabolite 548 U.S. __ June 22, 2006 Dismissed as improvidently granted. Breyer dissented from the DIG, with Stevens & Souter joining.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. 549 U.S. 118 2007 Involving a fundamental technology required for the artificial synthesis of antibody molecules.
KSR v. Teleflex 550 U.S. 398 2007 Concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.
Microsoft v. AT&T 550 U.S. 437 2007 Related to international enforceability of U.S. software patents.
Quanta v. LG Electronics 553 U.S. 617 2008 Patent exhaustion and its applicability to certain types of method patents.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
2010-present
Bilski v. Kappos 561 U.S. 593 2010 Re-focused subject-matter eligibility test on the three judicial exclusions “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
Global-Tech v. SEB563 U.S. __ 2011
Stanford v. Roche563 U.S. __ 2011 Bayh-Dole
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership564 U.S. __ 2011 Invalidity must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 566 U.S. __ year Invalidated attempt to patent natural law.
Caraco v. Novo __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1670 April 17, 2012
Kappos v. Hyatt 566 U.S. __ 2012
Bowman v. Monsanto 566 U.S. __ 2012 Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
Gunn v. Minton 568 U.S. 310 2013
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics __ U.S. __ 2013 Invalidated patents on naturally occurring DNA segments, but not on cDNA.
FTC v. Actavis __ U.S. __ 2013 Pay-for-delay is subject to antitrust analysis
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International __ U.S. __ 2014 Invalidated patent based on abstract idea.
Medtronic v. Boston Scientific __ U.S. __ 2014 Burden of persuasion on infringement in declaratory judgment cases
Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness __ U.S. __ 2014 Fee-shifting.
Highmark v. Allcare __ U.S. __ 2014 Fee-shifting.
Limelight v. Akamai __ U.S. __ 2014 Inducement liability with no direct infringement
Nautilus v. Biosig __ U.S. __ 2014 PHOSITA requirement
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 574 U.S. __ 2015 Claim interpretation in patent, standard of review by the Federal Circuit.
Commil v. Cisco __ U.S. __ 2015 Good-faith belief in invalidity is not a defense.
Kimble v. Marvel __ U.S. __ pending 2015 Should Court overrule Brulotte?
case name __ U.S. __ year
case name __ U.S. __ year
case name __ U.S. __ year
case name __ U.S. __ year
case name __ U.S. __ year
case name __ U.S. __ year

See also

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, March 31, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.