List of patent case law
Encyclopedia
This list contains an alphabetical listing of historically significant or leading case law in the area of patent law.
A
- Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's ApplicationAerotel v Telco and Macrossan's ApplicationAerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action...
(UK, 2006) - Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., , is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions...
(US, 1969) - Ariad v. LillyAriad v. LillyAriad v. Lilly is a United States court case in which Eli Lilly was found to have infringed held by Ariad Pharmaceuticals...
(US, 2006) - Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. 421 F.3d 981 was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that an End User License Agreement on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the...
(US, 2005) - Auction Method/HitachiT 258/03T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office , issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52 and of the European Patent Convention which built on the principles suggested by the same...
(EPOAppeal procedure before the European Patent OfficeDecisions of the first instances of the European Patent Office can be appealed, i.e. challenged, before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, in a judicial procedure , as opposed to an administrative procedure. These boards act as the final instances in the granting and opposition procedures before the...
, 2004)
C
- Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd.Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd.Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. R.P.C. 183 is a leading House of Lords decision on the nature of a patent and in particular the methods of claim construction.-Background:...
(UK, 1982) - City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that while the public use of an invention more than one year prior to the inventor's application for a patent normally causes the inventor to lose his right to a...
(US, 1878) - Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.- Facts :...
(US, 1908)
E
- EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that...
(US, 2006) - Egbert v. LippmannEgbert v. LippmannEgbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it.-Facts and procedural history:...
(US, 1881) - Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (US, 2008)
- Ex Parte BowmanEx Parte BowmanEx Parte Bowman 61 USPQ 2d 1669 was a decision by the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which asserted that in order to be patent-eligible, a process had to involve or promote the technological arts...
(US, 2001) - Ex Parte LundgrenEx Parte LundgrenEx parte Lundgren is a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences , that asserts that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States. They do, however,...
(US, 2004) - Ex Parte QuayleEx Parte QuayleEx parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213 is a United States patent law decision. When a patent application is in condition for allowance, prosecution on the merits is closed. At this time, further amendments of the patent application are allowed only to correct formal objections,...
(US, 1935)
F
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States...
(US, 2002) - Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024, 2000 SCC 66, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on patents, namely claim construction and the necessity to identify essential elements and non-essential elements. Along with the related decision, Camco v. Whirlpool , 9 C.P.R...
(CA, 2000)
G
- For "G" decisions of the European Patent Office, see List of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.
- Gottschalk v. BensonGottschalk v. BensonGottschalk v. Benson, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm...
(US, 1972) - Graham v. John Deere Co.Graham v. John Deere Co.Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, set forth in .-Facts and procedural history:...
(US, 1966) - Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 , was an important United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, and explaining how and when it was to be used.-Facts:The plaintiff Linde Air Products...
(US, 1950)
- Gottschalk v. Benson
H
- Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)Harvard College v. Canada [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the patentability of higher life forms, in particular, the Harvard oncomouse.- Background :...
: patent of higher lifeforms (CA, 2002) - Honeywell v. Sperry RandHoneywell v. Sperry RandHoneywell, Inc. v. Mc'Donalds., et al. 180 USPQ 673 was a landmark U.S. federal court case that in April 1973 invalidated the 1964 patent for the ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose electronic digital computer, thus putting the invention of the electronic digital computer into the public...
(US, 1973) - Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodHotchkiss v. GreenwoodHotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 is a United States Supreme Court case of 1850. It was the first US Supreme Court case to introduce the concept of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in United States patent law. -External links:*...
(US, 1850)
I
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to "tying" arrangements of patented products...
(US, 2006)
- Improver v RemingtonImprover v RemingtonImprover Corporation v Remington Consumer Product Limited [1990] F.S.R. 181 is a leading United Kingdom case on patent infringement, particularly in relation to how to establish what specifically a patent covers.-The Catnic Decision:...
(UK, 1990) - In re BilskiIn re BilskiIn re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 , was an en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the patenting of method claims, particularly business methods. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the rejection of the patent claims involving a method of...
(US, 2008) - In re Seagate Technology (US, 2007)
M
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 , is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact...
(US, 1996) - MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech...
(US, 2007) - Menashe v. William HillMenashe v. William HillMenashe Business Mercantile Ltd. & Anor v William Hill Organization Ltd. was a patent case that was particularly important regarding Internet usage. The case addressed a European patent covering the United Kingdom for an invention referred to as "Interactive, computerized gaming system with remote...
(UK, 2002) - Merck v. IntegraMerck v. IntegraMerck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 , is a United States Supreme Court case with ramifications for patent law. The dispute dates to approximately 1996 and centers on a federal law known as the "FDA safe harbor" ....
(US, 2005) - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. SchmeiserMonsanto Canada Inc. v. SchmeiserMonsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology. The court heard the question of whether growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant...
(CA, 2004)
P
- Parker v. FlookParker v. FlookParker v. Flook, was a 1978 United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that an invention that departs from the prior art only in its use of a mathematical algorithm is patent-eligible only if the implementation is novel and unobvious. The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part...
(US, 1978) - Pension Benefit Systems PartnershipPension Benefit Systems PartnershipT 931/95, commonly known as Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office , issued on September 8, 2000...
(EPO, 2000) - Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.-Background of the case:...
(US, 1998)
See also
- List of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
- List of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
- List of UK judgments relating to excluded subject matter
- List of United States patent law cases
- List of trademark case law
- List of copyright case law
External links
- "Internet Sources for Intellectual Property Case Law" on the WIPOWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationThe World Intellectual Property Organization is one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world"....
web site - IP Precedents Database at the Research Center for the Legal System of Intellectual Property, Waseda University