Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query patent returned 27 results.

	KSR INT L CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	PFAFF V. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	[Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP. [Syllabus]
	HOLMES GROUP, INC. V. VORNADO AIRCIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim.
	CARDINAL CHEMICAL CO. V. MORTON INTER'L, 508 U.S. 83 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. V. MARKETINGDISPLAYS, INC. [Syllabus] Because MDI's dual-spring design mechanism for keeping road signs upright is a functional feature for which there is no trade dress protection, MDI's claim for such protection is barred.
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
	ASGROW SEED CO. V. WINTERBOER, 513 U.S. 179 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]