enow.com Web Search

  1. Ads

    related to: intellectual property cases patent search by name and number

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung...

    35 U.S.C. § 289. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones ...

  3. List of United States Supreme Court patent case law

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans. Evans v. Eaton. 20 U.S. 356. March 20, 1822. Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans. A patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art.

  4. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University_v...

    Bayh–Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 – 212. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act. [1]

  5. List of United States patent law cases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Tyler v. Tuel - Supreme Court, 1810. Held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. Now obsolete. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood - Supreme Court, 1850. Introduced the concept of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in U.S. patent law. Le Roy v.

  6. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

    Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. [1]

  7. Diamond v. Chakrabarty - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented.Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter".

  8. United States patent law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law

    v. t. e. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time (usually, 20 years) from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the ...

  9. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank...

    Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court [1] decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. [2] The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection.

  1. Ads

    related to: intellectual property cases patent search by name and number