Intellectual Property Law: Supreme Court Cases
Sponsored Links
- DASTAR CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. 539 U. S. 23 (2003) (The phrase "origin of goods" refers to the producer of tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods, thus Section 43 of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 547 U. S. 388 (2006) (The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. A judgment reversing the denial of a motion for permanent injunctive relief in a patent infringement case against eBay is vacated where neither court below correctly applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs an award of injunctive relief.)
- ELDRED v. ASHCROFT 537 U. S. 186 (2003) (Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations in enlarging the duration of copyrights under the Copyright Term Extension Act, placing existing and future copyrights in parity.)
- FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N v. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 537 U. S. 293 (2003) (Bankruptcy Code section 525 prohibits the FCC from removing licenses held by a debtor in bankruptcy upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments owed to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.)
- FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD. 535 U. S. 722 (2002) (Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.)
- HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYS., INC. 535 U. S. 826 (2002) (Where a complaint seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement of trade dress and an injunction against such accusations, but does not assert a patent law claim, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cannot assert jurisdiction over the case, although the answer contains a patent law counterclaim.)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. 547 U. S. 28 (2006) (In the context of antitrust claims, since a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon a patentee, in all cases involving a "tying" arrangement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.)
- J.E.M. AG SUPPLY INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC. 534 U. S. 124 (2001) (Newly developed plant breeds are subject to 35 USC 101 of the Patent Act and neither the Plant Patent Act of 1930 or Plant Variety Protection Act preclude coverage under section 101.)
- KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. v. LASTING IMPRESSION I, INC. 543 U. S. 111 (2004) (A party raising the statutory affirmative defense of fair use to a claim of trademark infringement does not have a burden to negate any likelihood that the practice complained of will confuse consumers about the origin of the goods or services affected.)
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In a patent dispute involving adjustable pedal systems and raising issues regarding the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test for obviousness, a circuit court decision reversing summary judgment for defendant is reversed where, in rejecting the district court's rulings on obviousness, the Federal Circuit analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. section 103 and the Supreme Court's precedents.)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (Dismissal of a drug manufacturer's patent and contract declaratory judgment action, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, is reversed where petitioner was not required, insofar as Article III is concerned, to break or terminate its 1997 license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.)
- Merck v. Integra Lifesciences 545 U. S. 193 (2005) (The use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under 37 U.S.C. section 271(e)(1) as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe that the compound tested could be the subject of an FDA submission and the experiments will produce the types of information relevant to a new drug application.)
- MGM, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U. S. 913 (2005) (Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, by a railroad worker suffering from actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related asbestos exposure.)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In a patent infringement suit brought by AT&T charging Microsoft with liability for foreign installations of Windows under 35 U.S.C. section 271(f), rulings holding Microsoft liable are reversed as, because Microsoft does not export from the U.S. copies of Windows installed on the foreign-made computers in question, it does not "suppl[y]...from the United States" "components" of those computers, and it is therefore not liable under section 271(f).)
- MOSELEY v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. 537 U. S. 418 (2003) (A successful action under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark, rather than a likelihood of dilution.)
- NEW YORK TIMES CO., INC. v. TASINI 533 U. S. 483 (2001) (Databases that reproduce and distribute articles standing alone and not in context, and not as part of that particular collective work to which the author contributed, are not revisions for purposes of the 17 USC 201(c) safe harbor from copyright infringement.)
- TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. v. MKTG DISPLAYS, INC. 532 U. S.23 (2001) (A mechanism for keeping portable signs erect in a high wind, which has not otherwise established secondary meaning in its trade dress, is a functional feature for which there is no trade dress protection, as shown by the fact that the expired patent was a utility patent.)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. 546 U. S. 394 (2006) (Grant of a new trial pursuant to a review for sufficiency of the evidence in an antitrust case is vacated where defendant failed to renew its preverdict motion for a directed verdict as specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), and thus, the circuit court had no basis for reviewing defendant's sufficiency of the evidence challenge.)
- Will v. Hallock 546 U. S. 345 (2006) (A refusal to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar is not open to collateral appeal.)
Ads by FindLaw