enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. US Supreme Court won't review Apple's win against $503 ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/us-supreme-court-wont-review...

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear patent-licensing company VirnetX's bid to revive a $502.8 million jury verdict it won against Apple in a dispute over internet-security patents.

  3. List of United States patent law cases - Wikipedia

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

    This is a list of notable patent law cases in the United States in chronological order. The cases have been decided notably by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court ...

  4. Microsoft hit with $242 million US verdict in Cortana patent ...

    www.aol.com/news/microsoft-hit-242-million-us...

    Microsoft must pay patent owner IPA Technologies $242 million, a federal jury in Delaware said on Friday after determining that Microsoft's Cortana virtual-assistant software infringed an IPA patent.

  5. List of United States Supreme Court patent case law

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

    Schillinger v. United States: 155 U.S. 163: 1894: Patent infringement claim against the United States cannot be asserted. Black Diamond Coal Mining Company v. Excelsior Coal Company: 156 U.S. 611: 1895: Consolidated Electric Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co: 159 U.S. 465: 1895: Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart: 158 U.S. 68: 1895: Boyden ...

  6. Gottschalk v. Benson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson

    Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), 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 itself."

  7. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimble_v._Marvel...

    Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court for several reasons. One is that the Court turned back a considerable amount of academic criticism of both the patent misuse doctrine as developed by the Supreme Court and the particular legal principle at issue in the case.

  8. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v...

    On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...

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

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

    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]