Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr agree) 1. A person infringes a patent for a particular product if "he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it " “ see section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act"). The principle issue on this appeal concerns the meaning of the word "makes". The other aspect of this appeal raises a number of issues arising out of section 68 of the 1977 Act. The background facts and the patent in suit Intermediate Bulk Containers 2. An intermediate bulk container, unsurprisingly known as an "IBC", is a large container, normally around 1000 litres in volume, used for the transport of liquids. Such containers face tough transport conditions. They must be capable of bearing heavy weights (as much as six tonnes, as they are often stacked four-high), of withstanding prolonged or violent vibration, and of resisting the forces caused by the liquid splashing around inside, witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson - 39 U.S. 448 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 448 448 (1840) Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 448 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Action for the violation of a patent right, granted to the patentee for "a new and useful improvement in turning short curves on railroads." On 26 September, 1835, a second patent was granted, the original patent, granted in 1831, having been surrendered and cancelled on account of a defective specification, the second patent being for fourteen years from the date of the original patent. The second patent was in the precise form of the original, except the recital of the fact that the former patent was cancelled "on account of a defective specification" and the statement of the time the second patent was to begin to run. It was objected that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sperry v. Florida - 373 U.S. 379 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar No. 322 Argued March 25, 1963 Decided May 27, 1963 373 U.S. 379 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus Petitioner is not a lawyer, and has never been admitted to the Bar of any State, but, under regulations issued by the Commissioner of Patents with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 31, he has been authorized to practice before the United States Patent Office. As part of that practice, he has for many years represented patent applicants, prepared and prosecuted their applications, and advised them in connection with their applications in the State of Florida. The Florida Bar sued in the Supreme Court of Florida to enjoin the performance of these and other specified acts within the State, contending that they constituted unauthorized practice of law. Held: 1. Florida may not prohibit petitioner fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Washington v. Glucksberg - 521 U.S. 702 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus WASHINGTON ET AL. v. GLUCKSBERG ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 96-110. Argued January 8, 1997-Decided June 26,1997 It has always been a crime to assist a suicide in the State of Washington. The State's present law makes "[p]romoting a suicide attempt" a felony, and provides: "A person is guilty of [that crime] when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." Respondents, four Washington physicians who occasionally treat terminally ill, suffering patients, declare that they would assist these patients in ending their lives if not for the State's assisted-suicide ban. They, along with three gravely ill plaintiffs who have since died and a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide, filed this suit against petitioners, the State and its Attorney General, seeking a declaration that the ban is, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. - 247 U.S. 310 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 247 U.S. 310 (1918) United States v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company No. 75 Argued January 15, 16, 1918 Decided June 3, 1918 247 U.S. 310 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of March 2, 1896, c. 39, 29 Stat. 42, limiting the time within which suits may be brought to vacate land patents, contains a proviso "that no suit shall be brought or maintained, nor shall recovery be had for lands or the value thereof, that were certified or patented in lieu of other lands covered by a grant which were lost or relinquished by the grantee in consequence of the failure of the government or its officers to withdraw the same from sale or entry." Held, that the proviso was a curative measure referring only to lands patented before the enactment, and was no protection for a patent procured afterwards by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. - 192 U.S. 355 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U.S. 355 (1904) United States v. California & Oregon Land Company Nos. 4-5 Argued March 14, 17, 1902 Reargued December 9, 10, 1902 Reargued January 5-7, 1904 Decided February 1, 1904 192 U.S. 355 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus A decree rendered upon a bill in equity brought under the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 850, to have patents for land declared void as forfeited and to establish the title of the United States to the land is a bar to a subsequent bill brought against the same defendants to recover the same land on the ground that it was excepted from the original grant as an Indian reservation. As a general rule, a party asserting a right to suit is barred by a judgment or decree upon the merits as to all media concludendi or grounds for asserting the right known when th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States - 228 U.S. 618 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 228 U.S. 618 (1913) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States No. 269 Argued April 30, 1913 Decided May 26, 1913 228 U.S. 618 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Land Grant Adjustment Acts of 1887 and 1896 did not provide for any recovery of interest on amounts for which the railroad companies were required to account for lands erroneously patented to them and sold by them to bona fide settlers, and there was no liability for such interest until the determination of the amounts for which the companies were liable to account. In view of the whole situation, and all the circumstances involved in the determination of the amounts for which the Southern Pacific Railroad Company was liable to account under the Land Grant Adjustment Acts, held that such company was not liable for interest until after the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co. - 248 U.S. 507 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 507 (1919) United States v. New Orleans Pacific Railway Company Nos. 164, 165, 166 Argued December 10, 11, 1918 Decided January 27, 1919 248 U.S. 507 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Persons qualified and claiming under the Homestead Law who, before the definite location of the New Orleans Pacific Railway between Whitecastle and Shreveport (November 17, 1882), settled on portions of odd-numbered sections within the primary and indemnity limits of its grant, erecting dwellings and in part cultivating and fencing their respective tracts, and who thereafter maintained their claims, residency, occupation and cultivation, held entitled to the benefits of the Act of February 8, 1887, c. 120, 24 Stat. 391, which, while confirming the grant to the Railway Company, provides that lands occupied by actual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc. - 283 U.S. 152 (1931) U.S. Supreme Court Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc., 283 U.S. 152 (1931) Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc. Nos. 179, 180, 181, 182, 271, 272, 273, and 274 Argued March 6, 1931 Decided April 13, 1931 283 U.S. 152 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Where use of enemy-owned patents was licensed under 10 of the original Trading with the Enemy Act, of October 6, 1917, and the Alien Property Custodian, after the amendments of March 28 and November 4, 1918, seized the patents "and every right, title and interest with respect thereto," subject to the rights of the licensee, and assigned to the Chemical Foundation ( see United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1 ) all right and title which he thus acquired, held that the terms of the seizure should be construed with regard for the general purpose of the legislation Page 283 U. S. 153 to weaken the enemy, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company - 45 U.S. 380 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company, 45 U.S. 4 How. 380 380 (1846) Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company 5 U.S. (4 How.) 380 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EAST PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The practice of excepting generally to a charge of the court to the jury without setting out specifically the points excepted to censured. The writ of error not dismissed only on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case. Where a defective patent had been surrendered and a new one taken out, and the patentee brought an action for a violation of his patent right, laying the infringement at a date subsequent to that of the renewed patent, proof of the use of the thing patented during the interval between the original and renewed patents will not defeat the action. The seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1839, has exclusive reference to an original application for a patent, an...
Tag this Judgment!