Court : US Supreme Court
Foley v. Harrison - 56 U.S. 433 (1853) U.S. Supreme Court Foley v. Harrison, 56 U.S. 15 How. 433 433 (1853) Foley v. Harrison 56 U.S. (15 How.) 433 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus In 1841, Congress passed an Act, 5 Stat. 455, declaring that there shall be granted to each state &c.;, Louisiana being one, five hundred thousand acres of land. This act did not convey the fee to any lands whatever, but left the land system of the United States in full operation as to regulation of titles so as to prevent conflicting entries. Hence, where a plaintiff claimed under a patent from the State of Louisiana, and entries only in the United States office, and the defendant claimed under patents from the United States, the title of the latter is the better in a petitory action. The defendant has also the superior equity, because his entries were prior in time to those of the plaintiff, and the decision of a board, consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co. - 243 U.S. 502 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company No. 715 Argued January 12, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 502 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the patent law, the grant by patent of the exclusive right to use, like the grant of the exclusive right to vend, is limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that law does not empower the patent owner, by notices attached to the things patented, to extend the scope of the patent monopoly by restricting their use to materials necessary for their operation but forming no part of the patented invention, or to send such articles forth into the channels of trade subject to conditions as to use or royalty, to be imposed thereafter, in the vendor's discretion. The Button-Faste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Rutherford - 442 U.S. 544 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (1979) United States v. Rutherford No. 78-605 Argued April 25, 1979 Decided June 18, 1979 442 U.S. 544 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Terminally ill cancer patients and their spouses brought this action to enjoin the Government from interfering with the interstate shipment and sale of Laetrile, a drug not approved for distribution under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act). Section 505 of the Act prohibits interstate distribution of any "new drug" unless the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare approves an application supported by substantial evidence of the drug's safety and effectiveness. Section 201(p)(1) of the Act defines a "new drug" to include "any drug . . . not generally recognized . . . as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. - 272 U.S. 1 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926) United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. No. 127 Argued December 9, 10, 11, 1925 Decided October 11, 1926 272 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A decree of the circuit court of appeals, entered prior to the taking effect of the Jurisdictional Act of February 13, 1925, and affirming dismissal on the merits of a bill by the United States to set aside, as unauthorized and fraudulently procured, sales of patent and other rights and properties seized pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act was reviewable by this Court on appeal (Jud.Code 128, 241). Certiorari denied. P. 272 U. S. 5 . 2. The purpose of the Trading with the Enemy Act was not only to weaken enemy countries by depriving their supporters of their properties, but also to promote production in the United States of things ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gonzales v. Carhart - 05-380 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 GONZALES V. CARHART SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v . CARHART etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 05380.Argued November 8, 2006Decided April 18, 2007 Following this Courts Stenberg v. Carhart , 530 U. S. 914 , decision that Nebraskas partial birth abortion statute violated the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey , 505 U. S. 833 , and Roe v. Wade , 410 U. S. 113 , Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in the later stages of pregnancy. The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, dilation and evacuation (D&E;), the doctor dilates the cervix and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cunningham v. Ashley - 55 U.S. 377 (1852) U.S. Supreme Court Cunningham v. Ashley, 55 U.S. 14 How. 377 377 (1852) Cunningham v. Ashley 55 U.S. (14 How.) 377 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus On the 25th of December, 1824, Cunningham applied to the land office at Batesville, in Arkansas, to become the purchaser of a quarter section of land under a Cherokee certificate which had become vested in him. This application was refused upon the ground that two New Madrid certificates had been laid upon the land in 1820. The right under these certificates was claimed by Ashley. In 1830, Cunningham said that Brumbach had an improvement on the same quarter section, which Brumbach assigned to Ashley. The law sanctioned the division of a quarter section under such circumstances. In 1831, Cunningham claimed a preemption right under the Act of 29 May, 1830. The claims under this act and under the Cherokee float were not inconsistent with each other. In 1838, two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bates v. Coe - 98 U.S. 31 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31 (1878) Bates v. Coe 98 U.S. 31 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. Persons sued as infringers may, if they comply with the statutory condition as to notice, give the special defenses mentioned in the Patent Act in evidence, under the general issue. 2. Such notices, in a suit in equity, may be given in the answer; and the provision is, that if any one of those defenses is proved, the judgment or decree shall be in favor of the defending party, with costs. 3. Defenses of the kind, where the invention consists in a combination of old elements, incapable of division or separate use, must be addressed to the entire invention, and not merely to separate parts of the thing patented. 4. Pursuant to that rule, the respondents alleged in their answer four of the statutory defenses, besides the denial of infringement: 1. that the complainant is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arenas v. United States - 322 U.S. 419 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419 (1944) Arenas v. United States No. 463 Argued March 6, 7, 1944 Decided May 22, 1944 322 U.S. 419 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Upon the record in this case, which was a suit brought against the United States under the Act of August 15, 1894, by an Indian claiming, under the Mission Indian Act of 1891, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1917, a right to a trust patent to an allotment of lands which had long been in his possession and which had been considerably improved by him, but which allotment had not been Page 322 U. S. 420 finally approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the Government was not entitled to summary judgment, but should be required to answer, and the cause should proceed to trial, findings, and judgment. P. 322 U. S. 433 . 137 F.2d 199 reversed. Certiorari, 320 U.S. 733, to review the affirmance of a sum...
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 : UK Supreme Court
Lord Sumption (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath agree) 1. In this case, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd wishes to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 for the infringement of a European Patent which does not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal ("TBA") of the European Patent Office ("EPO") has retrospectively amended it so as to remove with effect from the date of grant all the claims said to have been infringed. 2. The TBA found that in the form in which the patent was originally granted the relevant claims were invalid because they had been anticipated by prior art. Virgin says that it is nevertheless entitled to recover damages for infringement because before the TBA had issued its decision, the English courts had held the patent to be valid and specifically rejected the objection based on prior art. Their case is that this conclusion and the finding of validity on which it is based are res judicata notwithstanding the later but ...
Tag this Judgment!