Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-18-2007
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
Decided on : Jan-09-2007
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. - 05-608 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIMMUNE, INC. v . GENENTECH, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05608.Argued October 4, 2006Decided January 9, 2007 After the parties entered into a patent license agreement covering, inter alia , respondents then-pending patent application, the application matured into the Cabilly II patent. Respondent Genentech, Inc., sent petitioner a letter stating that Synagis, a drug petitioner manufactured, was covered by the Cabilly II patent and that petitioner owed royalties under the agreement. Although petitioner believed no royalties were due because the patent was invalid and unenforceable and because Synagis did not infringe the patents claims, petitioner considered the letter a clear threat to enforce the patent, terminate the license agreement, and bring a patent infringe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T; Corp. - 05-1056 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T; CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICROSOFT CORP. v . AT&T; CORP. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 051056.Argued February 21, 2007Decided April 30, 2007 It is the general rule under United States patent law that no infringement occurs when a patented product is made and sold in another country. There is an exception. Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, adopted in 1984, provides that infringement does occur when one suppl[ies] from the United States, for combination abroad, a patented inventions components. 35 U. S.C. 271(f)(1). This case concerns the applicability of 271(f) to computer software first sent from the United States to a foreign manufacturer on a master disk, or by electronic transmission, then copied by the foreign recipient for installation on computers made and sold abroad. AT&T; holds a patent on a computer us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - 04-1350 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 KSR INT'L CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v . TELEFLEX INC. etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 041350.Argued November 28, 2006Decided April 30, 2007 To control a conventional automobiles speed, the driver depresses or releases the gas pedal, which interacts with the throttle via a cable or other mechanical link. Because the pedals position in the footwell normally cannot be adjusted, a driver wishing to be closer or farther from it must either reposition himself in the seat or move the seat, both of which can be imperfect solutions for smaller drivers in cars with deep footwells. This prompted inventors to design and patent pedals that could be adjusted to change their locations. The Asano patent reveals a support structure whereby, when the pedal location is adjusted, one of the pedals pivot points stays fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-2007
..... i and ii, and an opinion with respect to parts iii and iv, in which justice alito joins. section 203 of the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra), 116 stat. 91, 2 u. s. c. 441b(b)(2) (2000 ed ..... for electioneering. experience showed, however, just what we foresaw in buckley , that the line between issue broadcasts and outright electioneering was a patent fiction, as in the example of a television issue ad that ran during a montana congressional race between republican rick hill and ..... has been invoked as a reason for upholding contribution limits. as buckley explained, [t]o the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. id ..... likely be incapable of workable application; at a minimum, it would invite costly, fact-dependent litigation. brief for appellee in wrtl i , o. t. 2005, no. 04 1581, p. 39.[ footnote 5 ] a test focused on the speaker s intent could lead ..... but containing no magic words telling the recipient to vote for or against anyone. by the 1996 election cycle, between $135 and $150 million was being devoted to these ads, see mcconnell , 540 u. s., at 127, n. 20, and because ..... 39, and require the highest scrutiny, id. , at 44 45. the independent-expenditure restriction at issue in buckley limited the amount of money that could be spent relative to a clearly identified candidate. id. , at 41 (quoting 18 u. s. c. 608(e)(1) (1970 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority - 05-1345 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED HAULERS ASSOCIATION, INC., etal. v . ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 051345.Argued January 8, 2007Decided April 30, 2007 Traditionally, municipalities in respondent Counties disposed of their own solid wastes, often via landfills that operated without permits and in violation of state regulations. Facing an environmental crisis and an uneasy relationship with local waste management companies, the Counties requested and the State created respondent Authority. The Counties and the Authority agreed that the Authority would manage all solid waste in the Counties. Private haulers could pick up citizens trash, but the Authority would process, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-2007
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. - 06-480 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v . PSKS, INC., dba KAYS KLOSET KAYS SHOES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 06480.Argued March 26, 2007Decided June 28, 2007 Given its policy of refusing to sell to retailers that discount its goods below suggested prices, petitioner (Leegin) stopped selling to respondents (PSKS) store. PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegins pricing policys procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. , 220 U. S. 373 , makes it per se illegal under 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-02-2007
Massachusetts v. EPA - 05-1120 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MASSACHUSETTS etal. v . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 051120.Argued November 29, 2006Decided April 2, 2007 Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA shall by regulation prescribe standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class of new motor vehicles which in [the EPA Administrators] judgment cause[s], or contri...
Tag this Judgment!