Court : US Supreme Court
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. - 535 U.S. 826 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 01-408. Argued March 19, 2002-Decided June 3, 2002 Petitioner filed a federal-court action, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe respondent's trade dress and an injunction restraining respondent from accusing it of such infringement. Respondent's answer asserted a compulsory patentinfringement counterclaim. The District Court ruled in petitioner's favor. Respondent appealed to the Federal Circuit, which, notwithstanding petitioner's challenge to its jurisdiction, vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case. Held: The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a patent-law claim, but the answer contains a patent-law counterc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oregon v. Hitchcock - 202 U.S. 60 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 (1906) Oregon v. Hitchcock No. 16, Original Argued April 5, 6, 1906 Decided April 23, 1906 202 U.S. 60 I N EQUITY Syllabus In the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, either within or without an Indian reservation, or of any act of Congress assuming full responsibility in behalf of its wards, the Indians, affecting their rights to such lands, this Court has no jurisdiction of an action brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from patenting to Indians lands within that state, claimed by the state under the swamp land acts. Page 202 U. S. 61 The fact that the action is brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior, who is a citizen of a different state, does not give this Court jurisdiction as the real party i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WALKER AND LORD COLLINS (with whom Lord Phillips and Lady Hale agree) Introduction 1. The first Star Wars film (later renamed "Star Wars Episode IV “ A New Hope" in order to provide for "prequels" as well as sequels) was released in the United Statesin 1977. It was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the Imperial Stormtrooper helmet to which the trial judge (Mann J) referred in his judgment ([2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch), [2009] FSR 103, paras [2] and [121]): "One of the most abiding images in the film was that of the Imperial Stormtroopers. These were soldiers clad in white armour, including a white helmet which left no part of the face uncovered. . . The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that ch...
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
Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. - 462 U.S. 36 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983) Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. No. 81-1686 Argued January 17, 1983 Decided June 6, 1983 462 U.S. 36 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (SRHA) provided for the settlement of homesteads on lands the surface of which was "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops." Section 9 of the SRHA reserved to the United States title to "all the coal and minerals" in lands patented under the Act. When respondent mining company acquired a fee interest in land covered by a patent under the Act, it proceeded to remove gravel from a pit located on the land to use in paving streets and sidewalks in a company town where its workers lived. The Bureau of Land Management then notified respondent, and later determined, after a hearing, that the removal of the gravel constituted a trespa...
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
Bilski v. Kappos - 08-964 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 BILSKI V. KAPPOS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BILSKI etal. v . KAPPOS, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 08964.Argued November 9, 2009Decided June 28, 2010 Petitioners patent application seeks protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The key claims are claim 1, which describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, and claim 4, which places the claim 1 concept into a simple mathematical formula. The remaining claims explain how claims 1 and 4 can be applied to allow energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand. The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is...
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
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ACTAVIS, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 12416.Argued March 25, 2013Decided June 17, 2013 The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Act or Act) creates special procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers, one of which requires a prospective generic manufacturer to assure the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it will not infringe the brand-names patents....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Diamond v. Diehr - 450 U.S. 175 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) Diamond v. Diehr No. 79-1112 Argued October 14, 1980 Decided March 3, 1981 450 U.S. 175 CERTIORARI TO TIE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Syllabus Respondents filed a patent application claiming invention for a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. While it was possible, by using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships, to calculate by means of an established mathematical equation when to open the molding press and remove the cured product, according to respondents, the industry had not been able to measure precisely the temperature inside the press, thus making it difficult to make the necessary computations to determine the proper cure time. Respondents characterized their contribution to the art to reside in the process of constantly measuring the temperature inside the mold and feeding the temperature m...
Tag this Judgment!