en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Difference between revisions of "Case law in the USA"

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(Case law provides the official interpretations of the legislation.)
(It will take time for case law to be developed around the Bilski decision of 2010. See: patentability in the USA after Bilski.)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
'''Case law in the USA''' is the collection of rulings handed down by the [[USA patents courts and appeals|courts that deal with patents]] in the [[USA]].  Case law provides the official interpretations of the [[Legislation in the USA|legislation]].
 
'''Case law in the USA''' is the collection of rulings handed down by the [[USA patents courts and appeals|courts that deal with patents]] in the [[USA]].  Case law provides the official interpretations of the [[Legislation in the USA|legislation]].
  
The highest court, the [[US Supreme Court]], has not examine [[patentable subject matter]] since the 1981 case [[Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA)|Diamond v. Diehr]].  This case was interpreted by some as validating software patents, but this position is far from clear. Since then, the [[US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] (CAFC) has upheld many software patents.
+
The highest court, the [[US Supreme Court]], has not directly examined the question of the patentability of software ideas, but it has taken decisions on closely related [[patentable subject matter]] in a triplet of cases in the 70s and early 80s ([[Gottschalk v. Benson (1972, USA)|Benson]], [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)|Flook]], [[Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA)|Diehr]]), and in the 2010 [[Bilski v. Kappos]] case.
  
A change occurred in 2008 when the CAFC rejected a [[business method patent]] in the case [[in re Bilski]]The test they used, known as the [[machine-or-transformation test]], also narrows or closes the scope for patenting software ideas.  The Supreme Court is reviewing this new test in the [[Bilski v. Kappos]] case.
+
A lower court, the [[US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] (CAFC) has upheld many software patents.
 +
 
 +
It will take time for case law to be developed around the Bilski decision of 2010See: [[patentability in the USA after Bilski]].
  
 
==The main cases==
 
==The main cases==
Line 10: Line 12:
 
Most recent first; cases at the Supreme Court in '''bold''':
 
Most recent first; cases at the Supreme Court in '''bold''':
  
* '''[[Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA)]]''' (pending)
+
* '''[[Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA)]]'''
 
* [[in re Bilski (2008, USA)]]
 
* [[in re Bilski (2008, USA)]]
 
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]

Revision as of 05:06, 19 July 2010

Case law in the USA is the collection of rulings handed down by the courts that deal with patents in the USA. Case law provides the official interpretations of the legislation.

The highest court, the US Supreme Court, has not directly examined the question of the patentability of software ideas, but it has taken decisions on closely related patentable subject matter in a triplet of cases in the 70s and early 80s (Benson, Flook, Diehr), and in the 2010 Bilski v. Kappos case.

A lower court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has upheld many software patents.

It will take time for case law to be developed around the Bilski decision of 2010. See: patentability in the USA after Bilski.

Contents

The main cases

Most recent first; cases at the Supreme Court in bold:

Possibly interesting

  • Quanta v. LGE (2008, USA) (see: patent exhaustion)
  • O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) (Wikipedia page)
  • Graham v. John Deere, (1966) 383 U.S. 1, 6 (1966) (Wikipedia page)
  • Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2007)
  • NTP v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 397 F. Supp. 2d 785 (E.D. Va. 2005) (WP on NTP and WP on RIM)
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 1980
  • In re Iwahashi, 1990
  • Ex parte Yang-Huffman, Appeal 2007­2130, slip op. at 3 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. Oct. 4, 2007)
  • Northern Telecom v. Datapoint, 908 F.2d 931, 940-941 (1990)

Finding USA court documents

Related pages on en.swpat.org

External links


This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)