Court : US Supreme Court
Standard Oil Company v. United States - 283 U.S. 163 (1931) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Oil Company v. United States, 283 U.S. 163 (1931) Standard Oil Company (Indiana) v. United States No. 378 Argued January 13, 14, 15, 1931 Decided April 13, 1931 283 U.S. 163 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. Agreements for interchange of licenses under patents covering processes for the manufacture of an article sold in interstate commerce may be illegal under the Sherman Act if part of a larger plan to control interstate markets or if their necessary effect is to suppress or unduly to restrict competition. They should therefore be closely scrutinized. P. 283 U. S. 168 . 2. An interchange of patent rights and a division of royalties according to the value attributed by the parties to their respective patent claims is frequently necessary if technical advancement is not to be blocked by threatened litigation, and if th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. SHIMADZU - 307 U.S. 616 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 616 (1939) 307 U.S. 5 307 U.S. 613 307 U.S. 616 ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. SHIMADZU et al. No. 441. Argued Feb. 28, 1939. Decided April 17, 1939. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing May 22, 1939 And as Modified June 5, 1939.[ Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu 307 U.S. 5 (1939) ] Page 307 U.S. 616, 7 Mr. Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., for petitioner. Messrs. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, and Edmund B. Whitcomb, of Toledo, Ohio, for respondents. Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. The courts below have held valid and infringed certain claims of three patents 1 granted to Genzo Shimadzu, a citizen and resident of Japan. The earliest is for a method of forming a finely divided and, consequently, more chemically reactive, lead powder. The second is for a method or process of manufacturin...
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!Court : US Supreme Court
Burke v. Southern Pacific R. Co. - 234 U.S. 669 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Burke v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 234 U.S. 669 (1914) Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company Nos. 279, 280 Argued January 13, 14, 1913 Decided June 22, 1914 234 U.S. 669 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of July 27, 1866, making a grant of alternate odd numbered sections of public land to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company in aid of the construction of its main-line railroad, did not include mineral lands, but, on the contrary, excluded them from its operation Page 234 U. S. 670 and provided that the company should receive other lands as indemnity for them. The administration of the grant, including the issue of patents following the construction of the road, was committed to the Land Department, of which the Secretary of the Interior is the supervising officer. It was contemplated by the granting act that the mineral or nonmineral characte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank - 527 U.S. 627 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK ETAL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 98-531. Argued April 20, 1999-Decided June 23, 1999 Mter the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Act) amended the patent laws to expressly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, respondent College Savings Bank filed a patent infringement suit against petitioner Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board (Florida Prepaid), a Florida state entity. When this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 , Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the Act was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to use its Article I powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity. College Savings countered that Congress had properly exercised its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 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 ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY etal. v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 12398.Argued April 15, 2013Decided June 13, 2013 Each human gene is encoded as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which takes the shape of a double helix. Each cross-bar in that helix consists of two chemically joined nucleotides. Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids used to build proteins in the body. The nucleotides that...
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. 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
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - 02-1593 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BEDROC LIMITED, LLC, et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 021593. Argued January 20, 2004Decided March 31, 2004 The Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain nonmineral Nevada lands on which settlers could obtain permits to drill for water. Under 8 of the Pittman Act, each land grant, or patent, reserved to the United States all coal and other valuable minerals in the lands, and the right to remove the same. When one of petitioners predecessors-in-interest began extracting sand and gravel from land patented under the Pittman Act, the Bureau of Land Management ruled that he had trespassed against the Governments reserved interest in the propertys valuable minerals, and the Interior Board of Land Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morris v. United States - 174 U.S. 196 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196 (1899) Morris v. United States No. 49 Argued October 26, 27, 28, 31, November 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 1898 Decided May 1, 1899 174 U.S. 196 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The grant by Charles I to Lord Baltimore on the 20th of June, 1632, included in unmistakable terms the Potomac River, and the premises in question in thus suit, and declared that thereafter, the Province of Maryland, its freeholders and inhabitants, should not be held or reputed a member or part of the land of Virginia, and the territory and title thus granted were never divested, and upon the Revolution, the State of Maryland became possessed of the navigable waters of the state, including the Potomac River, and of the soils thereunder, and, by the act of cession to the United States, that portion of the Potomac River with the subjacent soil which was appurtenant to and part of...
Tag this Judgment!