Court : US Supreme Court
..... with the aid of expert testimony. p. 309 u. s. 403 . 6. the amendment of the patent law (r.s. 4921; act of february 18, 1922) which expressly recognizes the use of expert testimony in establishing damages or profits from patent infringement, did not enlarge in that respect the rules already applied in courts of equity, and ..... the fact that the copyright law was not similarly amended does not detract from the ..... impossible." the burden cast upon the defendant had not been sustained. in 1922, some years after the dowagiac decision and in harmony with it, congress amended section 70 of the patent law [ footnote 4 ] so as to provide expressly that, if "damages or profits are not susceptible of calculation and determination with reasonable certainty, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... is neither statutory nor case authority for the existence of a general right of either private individuals or the government to collaterally challenge the validity of issued patents. in the patent act of 1790, congress provided that private citizens could, upon motion alleging fraudulent procurement, prompt a district court to issue to a patentee an order to ..... , post, p. 410 u. s. 64 . mr. justice white delivered the opinion of the court. the united states appeals pursuant to 2 of the expediting act, as amended, 62 stat. 989, 15 u.s.c. 29, from portions of a decision by the united states district court for the district of columbia in a civil antitrust ..... of the act, 26 stat. 209, as amended, 15 u.s.c. 1. the government charged that the restrictions on the sale and resale of bulk-form griseofulvin, contained in the 1960 ici-glaxo agreement and the various sublicensing agreements, were unreasonable restraints of trade. the government also challenged the validity of ici's dosage-form patent. [ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... , signed by the applicant or his attorney, and such number of specimens of the trademark, as actually used, as may be required by the commissioner of patents." this act was amended by the act of may 4, 1906, 34 stat. 168, c. 2081, 1, by inserting after the words "description of the trademark itself" the words "only ..... of a monogram composed of the letters aaa'." plaintiffs declined to comply with the suggestion, and appealed from the ruling of the examiner that such amendment should be made to the commissioner of patents, who, on february 20, 1906, overruled the decision of the examiner, and held that the description was sufficient. april 27, 1906, ..... when needed to express colors not shown in the drawing." on june 21, 1906, the patent office sent plaintiffs the following communication: "attention is directed to the act approved may .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... and proportionality" test. in florida prepaid, we considered the validity of the eleventh amendment abrogation provision in the patent and plant variety protection remedy clarification act (patent remedy act). we held that the statute, which subjected states to patent infringement suits, was not appropriate legislation under 5 of the fourteenth amendment. the patent remedy act failed to meet our congruence and proportionality test first because "congress identified no pattern ..... of patent infringement by the states, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations." 527 u. s., at 640 (emphasis .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit no. 03 1237.argued april 20, 2005 decided june 13, 2005 it is not an act of [patent] infringement to use or import into the united states a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a federal law which regulates the ..... (a). in 1984, congress enacted an exemption to this general rule, see drug price competition and patent term restoration act of 1984, 202, 98 stat. 1585, as amended, 35 u. s. c. 271(e)(1), which provides: it shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the united states or import into ..... to the development and submission of information under a federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs . the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act (fdca), ch. 675, 52 stat. 1040, as amended, 21 u. s. c. 301 et seq ., is a federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs. see 21 u. s .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... he resumed work to the extent required by the law. his rights after resumption were precisely what they would have been if no default had occurred. the act of 1874 is in form an amendment of that of 1872, and all the provisions of the old law remain in full force except so far as they are modified by the new. from ..... "no action to recover any mining claim, whether placer or quartz, or any quartz lead or lode, or any interests therein or possession thereof, unless the same be held under patent from the government of the united states, shall be commenced or maintained unless that it is proved that the plaintiff, or his assigns, or predecessor in interest, were in the ..... was required to protect his right to the exclusive possession thereof. a. brought ejectment oct. 25, 1877. held that a's entry and labor did not entitle him to a patent under sec. 2332 rev.stat., nor prevent b.'s acquisition of title to the claim, and that the statute of limitations of montana of jan. 11, 1872, had no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... for postal, military, and other purposes, congress may at any time, having due regard for the rights of said northern pacific railroad company, add to, alter, amend, or repeal this act." p. 372. and in 1870, when making the appropriation for the survey of these lands within the limit of the grant to the northern pacific railroad company ..... requirement that the costs of surveying must be paid before the patent shall issue covers all of both grants or only that of 1864, and it is held that it covers both. we think this governs the present case. independently of the clause of the act of 1864 authorizing amendments, additions, and repeals, we think that until the lands ..... public lands to aid in the construction of a railroad provides that patents shall issue from time to time, as sections of the road are completed, but reserves to congress the right at any time "to add to, alter, amend, or repeal this act, . . . having due regard for the rights of the company," congress may, without violating the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... to some extent also, the obligations of the company for the transportation of the property and troops of the united states are changed. in this way the act of 1853 is amended, and the advantages, if any, gained by the united states may be looked upon as in the nature of concessions exacted in consideration of the additional grant ..... limited. certainly there is nothing in the language employed to show an intention of congress by that act to declare a forfeiture. taken as a whole, this provision of the act of 1866 amounts to nothing more than an amendment of the act of 1853 striking out the original time of limitation and inserting in lieu july 28, 1876. other ..... provisions of the act except from the grant of 1853 as well as that of 1866 all mineral lands within their respective limits, and also make patents necessary for the transfer of title .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... plaintiffs might have in the land were junior and inferior to those of defendants. plaintiffs thereupon amended their petition by averring that, since the commencement of the suit, the lands had been patented to the state under the swamp land act of 1850, and answered the petition of the interveners, alleging that, by the proper officer ..... of the government the character, quality, and condition of said lands were duly adjudicated in the manner provided by law, and that the title of the united states passed through certain patents mentioned in amendments to plaintiffs' petition ..... or speculative advantage. new orleans waterworks co. v. louisiana, 185 u. s. 336 . it is equally clear that the mere fact that an act of congress or a patent of the united states appears in a chain of title does not constitute such a right, title, or immunity as gives the federal court jurisdiction unless .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... et seq.; small tort claims act of dec. 28, 1922, 42 stat. 1066, see 28 u.s ..... .) 68; suits in admiralty act of mar. 9, 1920, 41 stat. 525, as amended, 46 u.s.c. (1946 ed.) 741 ..... appear from the court of claims act of feb. 24, 1855, 10 stat. 612, see 28 u.s.c. (1946 ed., supp. iii) 171 et seq.; tucker act of mar. 3, 1887, 24 stat. 505, see 28 u.s.c. (1946 ed., supp. iii) 1491 et seq.; patent infringement act of june 25, 1910, 36 stat. 851, as amended, 35 u.s.c. (1946 ed .....
Tag this Judgment!