The Supreme Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution of the famous mark, not merely a likelihood of dilution — a standard Congress later reversed by enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.
The Supreme Court rejected an absolute bar to claiming equivalents after a narrowing claim amendment, instead establishing a flexible presumption that the patentee surrendered equivalents within the amended scope — rebuttable on three specific grounds.
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction over a case when patent law appears only in the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim and is absent from the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
The Supreme Court held that utility patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be issued to protect plants, including sexually reproducing crops, and that such patents are not displaced by the narrower protections of the Plant Variety Protection Act.
The Supreme Court held that when a product feature was the subject of a utility patent, that prior art disclosure is strong evidence the feature is functional and therefore unprotectable as trade dress under the Lanham Act.
The Supreme Court held that when the Federal Circuit reviews USPTO factual findings, it must apply the Administrative Procedure Act’s ‘substantial evidence’ standard — not the stricter ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applied to district court fact findings — changing the a
The Supreme Court unanimously established a two-part test for the on-sale bar to patentability under § 102(b) — holding that an invention is ‘on sale’ before the critical date when it is (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale and (2) ready for patenting, resolving a circuit split
The Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the doctrine of equivalents and held that prosecution history estoppel applies even to unexplained claim amendments — establishing that when a patent claim is narrowed during prosecution without explanation, courts should presume the amendment was made for a
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the interpretation of patent claims is a question of law for the judge to decide — not a question of fact for the jury — fundamentally establishing that patent claim construction (the Markman hearing) is a judicial function and marking a turning point in how p