Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-2010
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
Decided on : Jun-07-2010
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICROSOFT CORP. v . i4i LIMITED PARTNERSHIP etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 10290.Argued April 18, 2011Decided June 9, 2011 In asserting patent invalidity as a defense to an infringement action, an alleged infringer must contend with 282 of the Patent Act of 1952 (Act), under which [a] patent shall be presumed valid and [t]he burden of establishing invalidity shall rest on the party asserting it. Since 1984, the Federal Circuit has read 282 to require a defendant seeking to overcome the presumption to persuade the factfinder of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents (collectively, i4i) hold the patent at issue, which claims an improved method for editing computer documents. After i4i sued petitioner Microsoft Corp. for willful infringement of that pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-2010
LORD HOPE 1. The Scottish Parliament was established by section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998. It was opened on 1 July 1999. Section 29(1) of the Act provides: "An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament." 2. This provision lies at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the Act gives effect. Section 29 has to be read together with Schedule 4 which protects certain enactments from modification, and then with section 30 and Schedule 5 which defines reserved matters. These are matters reserved to the UK Parliament, and which are therefore excluded from the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The area of competence that is identified by this group of provisions forms the basis for a series of sections that are designed to ensure that the Scottish Parliament confines itself to the defined areas of competence: section 31 (scrutiny of Bills before introduction), section 32 (the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-30-2010
Mayo Foundation for Medical Ed. and Research v. United States - 09-837 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL ED. AND RESEARCH V.UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH etal. v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 09837.Argued November 8, 2010Decided January 11, 2011 Petitioners (hereinafter Mayo) offer residency programs to doctors who have graduated from medical school and seek additional instruction in a chosen specialty. Those programs train doctors primarily through hands-on experience. Although residents are required to take part in formal educational activities, these doctors generally spend the bulk of their timetypically 50 to 80 hours a weekcaring for patients. Mayo pays its residents annual stipends of over $40,000 and also provides them with health insurance, malpractice insurance, and paid vacation time. The Federal Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-29-2010
Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. Two First Appeals were filed in the Delhi High Court, being FAO No. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil' in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No. 1 herein. The question for determination before the High Court in the two appeals was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. Inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the Delhi. High Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have been preferred by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. against the said decision.3. On 27th January, 2005, the Respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., filed a suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No. 121 of 2005, against the appellant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jun-01-2010
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 21043/2008, 20912/2009 and 3986/2010. In all the aforesaid Civil Appeals, common questions of law are involved and, therefore, they are heard together. Questions involved in all these cases are as under:(i) As to whether persons who hold either the degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad which are not included as recognized qualification in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the `Act 1970') have a right to practice in medical sciences. (ii) As to whether cut off date i.e. 1967 as per Entry No.105 in the Second Schedule of the Act,1970 is arbitrary and thus, liable to be quashed.(iii) As to whether restriction imposed under the Central Act from practicing, unless names appear in the Central Register, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India with reference to the State Act.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-19-2010
Reported in : 2010(3)LC1650(SC)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. These statutory appeals are filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the final judgment and order dated 18/20.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001 and convicted Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma (appellant in Crl. A. No. 179 of 2007) under Section 302, 201/120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC together with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the family of the victim and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three years and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-2010
1.Of these seven appeals which arise from the judgment dated April 25, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Jurisdiction), five are at the instance of the original plaintiff and the other two are by the parties, who were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court or the trial court but they are aggrieved by the findings recorded by the High Court as they claim that these findings are affecting their rights.The facts:2. Few important questions of law arise in this group of appeals. It will be convenient to formulate the questions after we set out the material facts and the contentions of the parties. The narration of brief facts from S.C. Suit No. 1767 of 2004 will suffice for consideration of these appeals. Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited is a Private Limited Company. As a promoter, it developd few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East), Mumbai and entered into agreements for sale of flats with flat purchasers. The flat purchasers are memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-01-2010
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-a religious Trust challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent No.1 claims to be the representative body of the residents of the area called Karpaga Nagar. The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition issued the following direction:"We allow the writ petitions and direct that the plots covered in LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any purpose other than the public purposes mentioned in such LP/MR 1/75." The High Court, however, did not include two plots, namely, plot Nos. 276 and 369, meaning thereby that those plots could be used for any other purpose.3. Some factual background would be necessary before we approach the controversy. The appellant is a Trust formed in the year 1924 to look after religious and secular activities of Pillayarpatti Koil situated at Pillayarpatti and for the welfare of Nagarathar community. The Trust acquired...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-21-2010
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45169 of 2008 by which the prayer of the appellants to quash certain inter-departmental communications has been rejected.Facts:3. One Mawasi, resident of Saraivega Hemlet of village Kakratha, Tehsil and District Agra, had two sons, namely, Sukha and Shyama. Shyama has only one son namely, Rammo. Descendents of Sukha have been Ballo, Radhe Ram, Babu and Sohan Singh. They were having certain land in Gata Nos. 870, 258, 192, 258/2 and 258/5 measuring 9 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of Village Kakratha Pragana, Tehsil and District Agra. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called `the Act 1976') came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 17th of February, 1976. The aforesaid tenure holders were subjected to the provisions of the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!