Court : US Supreme Court
Sioux City and St. Paul R. Co. v. United States - 159 U.S. 349 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Sioux City and St. Paul R. Co. v. United States, 159 U.S. 349 (1895) Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. United States No. 20 Argued April 16-17, 1895 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 349 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus The Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company having failed to complete the entire road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line, as contemplated by the Act of Congress of May 12, 1864, c. 84, 13 Stat. 72, making a grant of public land in aid of its construction, and as required by the statutes of Iowa, has not only received as many acres of public land as it could rightfully claim under that act, but has also received 2004.89 acres in excess of what it could rightfully claim. Grants of odd-numbered sections of public lands to aid in the construction of railways imply no guaranty that each section shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Humbird v. Avery - 195 U.S. 480 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Humbird v. Avery, 195 U.S. 480 (1904) Humbird v. Avery No. 7 Argued October 23, 26,1903 Decided December 12, 1904 195 U.S. 480 CERTIFICATE FROM AND ORDER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The act of Congress of July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 597, 620, c. 546, relating to the land grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, construed. Held, 1. That the act embraces land patented as well as unpatented, to which the right of the grantee or its lawful successor is claimed to have attached by definite location or selection, and which has been purchased directly from the United States or settled upon or claimed in good faith by any qualified settler under color of title or claim of right under any law of the United States or any ruling of the Interior Department. 2. The words in that act providing that the railroad grantee or its successor in interest "shall not be bound to relinquish lands sol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB - 437 U.S. 483 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (1978) Beth Israel Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board No. 77-152 Argued April 24 1978 Decided June 22, 1978 437 U.S. 483 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner nonprofit hospital had a written rule that prohibited employees from soliciting and distributing literature except in certain employee locker rooms and certain adjacent restrooms. The cafeteria was the common gathering place of employees, and had been used by petitioner or with its approval for solicitation and distribution of literature to employees for various nonunion purposes. After an employee had made general distribution in the cafeteria to other employees of a union newsletter and had been warned that she had violated the hospital's rule, and would be dismissed if she did so again, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), following a charge by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Traffix Devices, Inc v. Marketing Displays, Inc. - 532 U.S. 23 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. v. MARKETING DISPLAYS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No.99-1571. Argued November 29, 2000-Decided March 20, 2001 Respondent, Marketing Displays, Inc. (MDI), holds now-expired utility patents for a "dual-spring design" mechanism that keeps temporary road and other outdoor signs upright in adverse wind conditions. MDI claims that its sign stands were recognizable to buyers and users because the patented design was visible near the sign stand's base. Mter the patents expired and petitioner TrafFix Devices, Inc., began marketing sign stands with a dual-spring mechanism copied from MDI's design, MDI brought suit under the Trademark Act of 1946 for, inter alia, trade dress infringement. The District Court granted TrafFix's motion for summary judgment, holding that no reasonable trier of fact could determine that MDI h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Schurz - 102 U.S. 378 (1880) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 (1880) United States v. Schurz 102 U.S. 378 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is authorized to issue the writ of mandamus as an original process in cases where, by the principles of the common law, the petitioner is entitled to it. 2. when a patent for a part of the public lands has been regularly signed, sealed, countersigned, and duly recorded, the patentee has a perfect right to the possession thereof. 3. In the progress of the proceedings to acquire, under the laws of the United States, a title to public land, the power of the Land Department over them ceases when the last official act necessary to transfer the title to the successful claimant has been performed. 4. Title by patent from the United States is title by record, and the delivery of the instrument to the patentee is not, as in a conveyance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Albright v. Teas - 106 U.S. 613 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Albright v. Teas, 106 U.S. 613 (1883) Albright v. Teas Decided January 22, 1883 106 U.S. 613 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus A suit, the parties thereto being citizens of the same state, was brought in a court thereof, for moneys alleged to be due to the complainant under a contract whereby certain letters patent granted to him were transferred to the defendant. Held that the suit, not involving the validity or the construction of the patents, is not one arising under a law of the United Staten, and cannot be removed to the Circuit Court. This was a suit in equity originally brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey by Teas against Albright, Cahoone, and Tompkins. The bill alleged that Teas was the inventor and patentee of certain improvements in coach pads, harness saddles, and saddle trees covered by three certain letters patent issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Co. - 123 U.S. 87 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U.S. 87 (1887) Parker and Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company Argued October 20, 1887 Decided October 31, 1887 123 U.S. 87 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus The first eight claims of reissued letters patent No. 10,O62, granted March 14, 1882, to Arthur E. Hotchkiss for improvements in clock movements on an application for a reissue filed July 19, 1881 (the original patent, No. 221,310, having been granted to Hotchkiss November 4, 1879, on an application filed July 29, 1879, and a prior reissue, No. 9656, having been granted April 12, 1881), are invalid because not for the same invention as that of the original patent. The statutes and the decisions of this Court on the question of the necessity that a reissued patent should be granted only for the same invention as the original patent r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. - 141 U.S. 358 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 141 U.S. 358 (1891) United States v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company No. 317 Argued March 10-11, 1891 Decided October 19, 1891 141 U.S. 358 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus Congress, March 3, 1863, granted to Kansas every alternate section of land, designated by odd numbers for ten sections in width on each side, in aid of the construction of the following roads and each branch thereof: first, a railroad and telegraph from the City of Leavenworth, Kansas, by the way of Lawrence and the Ohio City crossing of the Osage River, to the Southern line of the state in the direction of Galveston Bay, in Texas, with a branch from Lawrence by the valley of the Wakarusa River to the point on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad where that road intersects the Neosho River; second, a railroad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Hien - 166 U.S. 432 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432 (1897) In re Hien No. 16. Original Argued March 22, 1897 Decided April 12, 1897 166 U.S. 432 ORIGINAL Syllabus The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia was duly authorized by 6 of the act creating the court, as well as by 6 as amended by the act of July 20, 1894, to make rules limiting the time of taking appeals to the court from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, and there was no restriction on this power by reason of Rev.Stat. 4894. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. The Commissioner of Patents, in an interference proceeding between Philip Hien and one William A. Pungs, awarded priority of the invention in controversy to Pungs, June 9, 1894. Hien gave notice to the Commissioner, March 12, 1896, of an appeal from his decision, under 4912 of the Revised Statutes, to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbi...
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!