The Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful but not exclusive test for patent eligibility under §101, and affirmed rejection of Bilski’s risk-hedging claims as unpatentable abstract ideas.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Copyright Act’s registration requirement is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prerequisite — meaning courts can hear copyright cases even when registration has not occurred, if neither party objects.
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion applies to method patents and that an authorized sale of a product that substantially embodies a patented method exhausts the patent holder’s rights — foreclosing downstream infringement suits against purchasers.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test for patent obviousness, holding that courts must apply a flexible, expansive analysis that recognizes multiple reasons why a person of ordinary skill might combine known elements.
The Supreme Court held that Microsoft did not infringe AT&T’s speech processing patents under § 271(f) when it shipped master discs of Windows to foreign manufacturers who then copied and installed the software — because software code, standing alone, is not a ‘component’ that
The Supreme Court held that a patent licensee need not terminate or breach its license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid or not infringed — a licensee under an active license has standing to bring such a challenge.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that courts must apply the traditional four-factor equitable test when deciding whether to grant a permanent injunction in a patent case, rejecting both a categorical rule granting injunctions to prevailing patentees and a categorical rule against injunctions for n
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a patent does not by itself establish market power for antitrust tying purposes; plaintiffs must prove market power directly through evidence of the relevant market.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Grokster could be liable for copyright infringement by inducing its users to infringe — adopting an inducement theory of secondary copyright liability and holding that a distributor who promotes infringing use through affirmative acts of encouragement can be h
The Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)’s safe harbor exempts from patent infringement all uses of patented compounds that are reasonably related to generating information for an FDA submission, including preclinical studies that do not themselves produce data submitted to the FDA.