Jump to content

List of United States Supreme Court patent case law: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
stub
(No difference)

Revision as of 04:09, 2 June 2015

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
Trade-Mark Cases 100 U.S. 82 1879 9 - 0 Constitutional basis for trademark regulation Majority:
Miller (unanimous)
The Copyright/Patent Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks.
Besser Mfg. v. United States ___ U.S. ____ 1952 Compulsory licensing remedy in patent antitrust case
Sanford v. Kepner ___ U.S. ____ 1952


List format, Chronological

  • Tyler v. Tuel - Supreme Court, 1810. Held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. Now obsolete.
  • Hotchkiss v. Greenwood - 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. - Supreme Court, 1878. "Prior use" does not include experimental use.
  • Egbert v. Lippmann - Supreme Court, 1881. Held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it.
  • Schillinger v. United States - Supreme Court, 1894. Patent infringement against the United States.


  • Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Company. - Supreme Court, 1900.
  • Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company - Supreme Court, 1902.
  • Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. - Supreme Court, 1908. Established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.
  • Leeds And Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company. - Supreme Court, 1909.
  • Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford General Fireproofing Company v. Expanded Metal Company. - Supreme Court, 1909.
  • Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company - Supreme Court, 1911.
  • Henry v. AB Dick Co. - Supreme Court, 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. - Supreme Court, 1912.
  • Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell - Supreme Court, 1913. Patent licensing terms do not include dictating the price of the product.
  • The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Company - Supreme Court, 1913.
  • Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company & Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Smith - Supreme Court, 1915.
  • Minerals Separation v. Hyde - Supreme Court, 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. - Supreme Court, 1916.



  • Gottschalk v. Benson - Supreme Court, 1972. Held that an algorithm is not patentable if the claim would preempt all uses of the algorithm.
  • Honeywell v. Sperry Rand - 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. - 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 Pro - 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".
  • Parker v. Flook - Supreme Court, 1978. Ruled that a mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application itself is not novel.



  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. - 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.







References


See also